WWF & the WCD

[westholme]

http://www.wwf.org.mx/wwfmex/temporales/ForoAgua_06/todam_or_not.pdf

The WWF's summary reprt on five years after the World Commission on dams. The Burnett River dam (Paradise Dam) is on page 11.

[elaine]

Well done on finding this report! I encourage everyone to read all of it - not just the text relevant to the Paradise Dam.
The 'lack of transparency' mentioned in this report is another woryying factor of the Traveston Dam proposal, and begs the question asked in some many other postings - where's the money coming from? What other agencies are involved in the construction bid?
We want answers!

[westholme]

This is for the hardcore personal researchers out there....here, my fellow forumites, is the ENTIRE report from the World Commission On Dams from the year 2000.
This link is the Chapter page. You can go here instead of downloading the whole report, and pick and choose what you would like to read.

http://www.dams.org/report/contents.htm

Happy hunting.

[westholme]

Now I'm more proficient with copying and pasting, so here is the page on the Burnett River's 'Paradise Dam' taken from the 'Five Years After The World Commission on Dams'. The link to this report is above as is the link to the 'World Commission on Dams'.
The dams listed in this report are considered to be the Worlds worst Dams. I forgot to mention that before.

Burnett River; Paradise Dam. Australia

Dam height: 37 m
Reservoir size: 29.5 km2
Function: Irrigation and domestic/industrial
water supply
Cost: US$150 million

While the Australian Government is spending up to US$2 billion over five years to restore water flows in the heavily dammed Murray-Darling basin, elsewhere in the country dam building is still going ahead. In Queensland, the Burnett River Dam has been under discussion since the 1960s, as a
means of improving agricultural production and encouraging urban and industrial development. It was repeatedly rejected as not viable, most recently in 1997. Nevertheless, in November 2003 construction of the dam, the first and largest of five proposed water infrastructure projects on the Burnett River, started and is today nearing completion.
There has been a lack of transparency as concerns the economic assessments of the dams. Access to most studies has been denied to the public on the basis that they contain commercially confidential information. Based on the available information there are serious concerns about the economic viability of the dam as much of it depends on the expansion of the sugar industry. However, the sugar industry has not been profitable and it is likely that producers will be unwilling
to pay the high water prices that are needed to achieve full recovery of the dam’s costs28. As a result, it is likely that the dam will require subsidies indefinitely.
In addition to economic concerns and a lack of transparency, there are also serious environmental impacts expected from the project, most notably on the Queensland lungfish, (Neoceratodus forsteri). The lungfish, listed as a nationally threatened species and protected from fishing under the Queensland Fisheries Act, is found only in a few rivers in Queensland and the Burnett River is one of its prime habitats. It is extremely specific in its choice of spawning habitat and the Burnett River Dam is likely to further reduce spawning sites and increase the risk of its extinction.
In WWF’s view, the decision to build the Burnett River Dam appears to be mainly politically motivated and was taken by the Queensland Government following promises made in the lead up to the 2001 state elections. Construction of the dam was believed to bring substantial employment to the Burnett basin, both through job creation related to dam construction and through expanding agriculture. However, a least cost planning study for the Burnett region, commissioned by the
Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, proposed a number of alternatives, including off stream storage and water efficiency measures, some of which would provide more jobs, cheaper water and less environmental impacts29.
In WWF’s view, this project fails to observe WCD Strategic Priorities 1 for gaining public acceptance, 2 on comprehensive options assessment and 4 for sustaining rivers and livelihoods.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[Tricia]

FYI-

I had a few reports posted on the savethemary site about the Paradise Dam a few weeks ago-in additon to the WWF report there is also The Least Cost Planning Study for the Paradise Dam done by the Institute for Sustainability. This report was commissioned by the government (I think the Environmental Protection Agency) but then deep sixed. Clearly provides alternatives to the PD which are economically and environmentally viable. The Mayors on the Mary River have commisioned the Institute to do the LCP study for the Traveston Dam. There is also a report on the site on the Economic Viability of the Paradise Dam which I believe was a submission from the ACC.

The International Rivers Network has also prepared a report called the Citizen's Guide to the World Commission on Dams- It provides a good summary of the WCD Report but more importantly gives advice and tips on using the WCD findings to help stop unwanted dam projects. www.irn.org/wcd/wcdguide.pdf There is also a highlighted hard copy at the Information Centre at Kandanga.

Lots of good information.
Best,

Tricia