Water Power and Dam Construction. Issue April 2010
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM APRIL 2010 39
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
that when choosing a preferred alternative some of these issues
may remain unresolved despite the best efforts to remedy or miti-
gate. But at this point those irresolvable issues must be weighed
up against the benefits of the project and the adverse effects of
alternatives – one being no project.
By presenting a public awareness programme in this fashion we
enable the participants to reach their own conclusions (or at least real-
ise that the answer is not black and white) and limit the areas for oppo-
sition groups to target the effectiveness of any unbalanced arguments or
information, and reduce the project proponent’s credibility.
LESS TRU STING
I have lived through a period where the public perception (at
least in the western world) and trust in professionals such as law-
yers, doctors, bankers and, dare I say it, engineers has changed.
There was a time when what a noted professional said was taken
as gospel. Now people are far less trusting and there are many
examples where professionals or experts have got it wrong, and
the news media, with the assistance of rapidly improving world-
wide communication, have ensured the public are aware of these
failures. The days are gone (even in developing world) where the
public will accept a professional’s argument on the basis of rank
or qualifications.
Despite this, as part of building credibility with the public, I support
the concept of having the technical people involved when presenting
the facts to the public and media. To be successful in this approach
these individuals usually require a certain amount of media training.
In my opinion the use of technical professionals in this role adds sig-
nificant credibility to the information being passed to the media and
the perception of the public at large.
POSITIVE MANN ER
Along with more rigorous study and appraisal of the impacts and
benefits of water development, participation of the public and ben-
eficiaries in these projects in the early stages is evolving. It is a key
element of successful integrated water resource management. For
technical professionals and project promoters this presents significant
challenges. If approached in a professional and positive manner the
outcomes of stakeholder participation can have significant short and
long term benefits.
Peter Mulvihill is the Chairman of ICOLD’s
Public Awareness and Education Committee
and ICOLD Vice President for the
Africa Australasia Zone.
Email: ptm@pioneergen.co.nz
References
R.J.A. Goodland (1997) Environmental Sustainability in the Hydro Industry:
Desegregation of the Debate. Workshop at IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 10-11
April 1997.
World Water Forum Bulletin, Issue 6, Volume 82, Number 21, Sunday, 22
March 2009.
P. T. Mulvihill (2008) Public Awareness for Water & Hydropower
Development, Water India-V, 2008
IWP& DC
t*NQFSNFBCMF
t'MFYJCMF
t3FTJTUBOUUPTFUUMFNFOUT
t*OTUBMMFERVJDLMZ
BMTPVOEFSXBUFS
t%VSBCMF
t"QQMJDBCMFUPBMMUZQFT
PGTUSVDUVSFT
t&OWJSPONFOUBMMZGSJFOEMZ
t&GGJDJFOUMZNPOJUPSFE
(&0.&.#3"/&4"3&
.FTTPDIPSB(SFFDF&YQPTFE17$HFPNFNCSBOFUPXBUFS
QSPPGBNIJHI$'3%)ZESPQPXFS
$"31*4:/5)&5*$(&0.&.#3"/&4
)"7&45011&%-&","(&*/%".4
4JODF
$"31*5&$)
$PSTP4BO(PUUBSEP$IJBTTP4XJU[FSMBOE
1I 'BY
XXXDBSQJUFDIDPN FNBJMJOGP!DBSQJUFDIDPN
Carpi_March10:Carpi ad Oct07 18/3/10 12:46 Page 1
1
603
448
1562
info@geokon.com
www.geokon.com
Concrete Stressmeters
for Mass Concrete and
RCC dams
Geokon’s Model 4370 VW Concrete Stressmeter is immune
from modulus changes over time, shrinking and swelling
due to varying moisture content, and creep under sustained
loads: www.geokon.com/products/datasheets/
4370.pdf
P h o t o c o u r t e s y o f M PA B r a u n s c h w e i g
40 APRIL 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
I
N the last few decades decision-making processes dedicated
to allocating water among different users have accorded
increasing importance to the environmental and social
values of water. In many river systems around the world,
however, conflicts between dam operators, local communities,
environmentalists and government are still common and in many
cases unresolved.
In British Columbia (BC) Canada, the water use planning (WUP)
programme is a multi-stakeholder process aimed at revising the oper-
ating plans of BC Hydro’s hydroelectric facilities, in order to consider
water values beyond power generation (see http://www.waterpower-
magazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2008489).
Prior to the mid-1990s, when this progressive programme emerged,
BC Hydro operated in a heavily conflicted environment, whereby
most requests for the release of environmental flows were disregard-
ed. So what were the circumstances and factors that converged to
enable the creation of the WUP programme?
UNSATISFACTORY SITUATION
BC Hydro is the third largest electric utility in Canada today, provid-
ing 90% of British Columbia’s energy needs, mainly through hydro
power dams which were built throughout the last century. While
in the earlier parts of the twentieth century dams were perceived as
engines of economic growth and symbols of man’s prowess over
nature, with time they came to be seen as megaprojects responsible
for several unaccounted social and environmental costs.
BC citizens, following the aggressive development of the Peace and
Columbia river facilities in the 1960s and 1970s [1], started ques-
From conflict to collaboration
What prompted BC Hydro to initiate its water use planning programme, and to consider
water values beyond electricity generation? Lucia Scodanibbio takes a look back at how
the Canadian utility was able to gain increased public acceptance of its hydro operations
Above: The Peace Canyon Dam and powerhouse. The structure on the upper
right is the power house, in the middle-left is the spillway. The Dinosaur
Reservoir is on the left upper left of the photo. The earth structure in the res-
ervoir behind the dam is an anti-vortex dyke to protect the dam against debris
and prevent reservoir users from getting to close to the dam for safety reasons
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM APRIL 2010 41
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
tioning the flooding of productive agricultural lands and wildlife
habitat, the displacement of aboriginal groups, and the submergence
of sometimes entire communities due to dam projects [2]. Within a
background provided by the growth of the environmental movement,
a number of events in the late 1980s and early 1990s brought the
problems associated with the operating regime of BC Hydro facilities
to the attention of decision-makers in the utility, and the provincial
and federal government. These problems increasingly highlighted the
need to address a growing unsatisfactory situation.
In the late 1980s, the decline of fish stocks in BC rivers became a major
concern, and the effects of construction and operation of hydro power
dams and diversions on fish populations and habitat were increasingly
evident [3]. Alongside the cumulative effects that had taken place over
a number of years, several sudden events in the early 1990s brought
mounting attention to shortcomings within BC Hydro operations.
In 1991-92, for example, BC Hydro spilled water into the Bridge
River due to large inflows, causing the destruction of fish habitat
downstream of the Terzaghi dam [4]. The spills resulted in prose-
cution by the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which
accused the utility of infringing the Fisheries Act. Along with these
high-profile court cases, several further events during that period,
which were widely covered by the media, highlighted BC Hydro’s
shortcomings. These included the destruction of a locally-built fish
spawning channel on the Campbell river, fish stranding due to lower-
ing the Downton reservoir level for maintenance work [5], and other
cases of fish and fish habitat damage due to spills, rapid flow fluctua-
tion, peaking operations of certain plants, etc [6&7].
At the same time, BC Hydro also had to work within an unclear
regulatory environment [8]. Given that most of its water licences dated
back to the early parts of the twentieth century, they included no provi-
sion for minimum water releases and were very general, using unclear
language that could be subject to differing interpretations and provid-
ing little guidance regarding how facilities should be operated.
This meant that conflicts had emerged regarding for instance the
amount of water that storage licences actually allowed to be stored,
or diversion licences allowed to be diverted. Furthermore, following
the release of a study which indicated that BC Hydro was failing to
comply with its water licences on a number of its facilities [9&10], it
became clear that BC Hydro licences needed to be revised.
BC Hydro was also encountering more problems with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), which, since the crea-
tion of stronger legislation for the protection of fish habitat in the late
1970s, had become significantly more vocal and active in putting pres-
sure on the utility [4]. As DFO prosecuted in some cases, and released
flow orders and constraints in others, BC Hydro felt that it could no
longer freely operate and meet its mandate of electricity production.
Although in some cases negotiations with DFO led to minimum
flow releases on some streams, such agreements generally only
affected smaller facilities which would incur no loss in power genera-
tion. The utility’s official position was that as long as it had a licence,
which gave it legitimacy to use water to produce hydro power, it was
in compliance with its responsibilities and did not need to accommo-
date demands from other water users. Nonetheless, DFO had already
threatened to charge BC Hydro for destruction of fish habitat on a
number of its facilities, including the Cheakamus, Hugh Keenleyside
and John Hart [4], furthering an approach which, in addition to being
costly and time-consuming, was ineffective at solving the underlying
problems with BC Hydro operations.
In this precarious situation, the utility was looking to get specific pro-
visions, authorisations and constraints on its licences, operating rules
and regime in order to ensure compliance with provincial and federal
legislation, while still being able to meet the terms of its mandate [11].
UNDER PR ESSURE
BC Hydro was also being put under mounting public pressure from
some First Nation groups and a range of NGOs. These were attract-
ing growing media attention, threatening the reputation of both the
utility and the provincial government responsible for the crown cor-
poration. The groups demanded changed dam operations, the release
of instream flows, and increased participation in decision-making
processes surrounding water management in the province [12]. For
the first time, such public interest groups were starting to have an
impact. In 1989 Angus Reid public polls found that concern for the
environment had reached an historic high, with the environment
reported as being a ‘top-of-mind’ issue for Canadians [13].
As a further sign of the changing times, in 1991 the New Democratic
Party (NDP) government was elected in BC for the first time after
close to 20 years. The environment was one of the main platforms
on which the NDP, which was responsive to the shifting times, based
its campaign and won over the previously-ruling pro-industry Social
Credit Government [2]. Alongside substantive commitments that
included doubling the amount of protected land area in BC, the NDP
also made the use of consensus-based decision-making techniques,
multi-stakeholder forum and consultation to deal with contentious
environmental issues, increasingly common. Through such processes,
a degree of authority, going beyond mere consultation, was starting
to be devolved to stakeholders.
BC Hydro also started undergoing an internal shift. In the late
1980s the utility recognised that it was not being a good corporate
citizen. Customer perceptions, values and priorities were shifting, and
they consequently expected the company to change and go beyond
the minimum necessary to keep out of court [11].
While the company had started to undertake compensation and miti-
gation programmes on some of its operations, prior to the 1990s BC
Hydro’s approach to sustainability and to the environmental damage
caused by the utility’s operations was strongly tied to legal compliance
and was mostly reactive [14]. As time went on, however, the inclu-
sion of environmental principles became more widely discussed, start-
ing with the 1989 Board of Directors resolution: ‘In carrying out its
business, BC Hydro will minimise adverse effects on the natural and
social environment and actively pursue opportunities to manage our
resources for the benefit of present and future generations’ [15].
This was followed by The Way Ahead, BC Hydro’s 1993 cor-
porate strategic plan which provided a new vision and eight new
strategic initiatives, including ‘to develop and maintain a leadership
role in environmental stewardship’ [16].
While a culture shift was taking place within the utility, BC Hydro
also recognised that from a purely business/financial point of view,
the current approach was not working. It knew its licences were not
bullet-proof and that the way ahead was paved with orders, legal
challenges and DFO trying to closely manage the corporation. An
internal assessment of the worst-case scenario, should the situation
proceed as it had been in the early 1990s, indicated that C$180M pa
(1995 dollars) worth of generation was in jeopardy.
Furthermore, while the utility recognised that under a traditional
business case it would not voluntarily undertake inevitably costly
changes in operations, given that the value of fish losses would never
add up to the power produced [17], the decisions it now faced were
much more complex.
‘In a traditional business case, costs are weighed against benefits.
In environmental decisions, however, the benefits of taking action
are not simply the additional fish produced or the spills avoided, but
the reduction or elimination of risks to our freedom to operate the
system in a rational and balanced way. In other words, we can esti-
mate the cost of doing something to satisfy regulatory demands or
public expectations, but how do we estimate the potential cost of not
doing something, especially when a consequence of inaction could
be to bring about the regulations that remove the freedom to decide
altogether?’ [11]
BC Hydro had therefore realised that by being proactive and lead-
ing a process that would address the problems tied to its operations, it
would avoid a reactive, regulatory response from government, which
would on the other hand remove the utility’s discretion.
WINDOW O F OPPORTUNI TY
Although the route ahead appeared to be increasingly clear, BC
Hydro had two choices: it could negotiate or litigate; deciding that
the former was a more productive and cost-effective approach [4].
42 APRIL 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
Much internal convincing had to occur before senior management
accepted the idea that despite having a water licence, some flows
could be returned for the benefit of other users. This convincing, in
large part aided by the business case and the need to have regulatory
clarity in order to operate more freely, was carried out by a handful
of enlightened and progressive individuals who joined BC Hydro as
of the late 1980s. These individuals, who had realised that it was
crucial that BC Hydro take the high road in its approach to the envi-
ronment and decision-making, became the WUP champions within
the company.
One of the crucial factors in obtaining the buy-in of senior manage-
ment was the creation of the system operations fund, an agreement
between the utility and the provincial government, whereby the latter
would cover any power generation losses that may result from the
decisions taken during the WUP processes [17]. Thus, while it was
accepted that the operating regime of facilities may change in order
to release water for fisheries or recreational purposes, it was agreed
that the losses in revenue arising from that foregone power would be
offset by the provincial government, through a rebate on the rental
fees the utility paid for the use of water for electricity generation [18].
The cap was put at C$50M per year.
A policy window for change opened when BC Hydro applied for
an expansion of its generating capacity at its Stave Falls power plant
in 1994. Giving in to pressure from public interest groups that had
been demanding that flows in the contiguous Alouette river (which
feeds the Stave Falls scheme) be augmented, the provincial govern-
ment included that a water use plan be conducted as a condition for
going ahead with the Stave Falls upgrade.
As a result, a multi-stakeholder process, which came to be known
as the Alouette water use plan (AWUP), was launched in late 1995 to
review the operating plans of the Alouette scheme. It was composed
of 19 stakeholders from federal, provincial, local and First Nations
governments, NGOs and BC Hydro, joined together in what became
known as the Alouette stakeholder committee. The objectives of
AWUP were to:
U Explore the different values related to water in the Alouette.
U Develop a common understanding and information base to be used
for developing an operating plan for the facility.
U Conduct an open consultation process with integrity and seeking
consensus [19].
A number of meetings that took place over a period of several months
was facilitated by two consultants, and resulted in the signing of an
agreement in 1996 that BC Hydro would release 2.6m
3
/sec/yr, equiv-
alent to approximately 10% of the river’s average annual flow [20].
While the AWUP was initially considered a pilot, its success in
terms of being an inclusive and science-based process clearly showed
potential for solving longstanding problems and providing a method
to reach agreement between several stakeholders [21]. The fact the
process was based on structured decision making, which combined
objective, scientific data with the values people placed on different
water uses [22&23], was crucial for its acceptance.
Similarly, the inclusion of the principle of adaptive management,
which entailed that decisions could be revised after a certain time in
the light of monitoring studies and the collection of new information,
also made stakeholders more at ease when it came to taking conten-
tious decisions. In addition, the process was hailed for building trust
between the different parties and for gradually replacing the antago-
nistic relations which had previously characterised the interactions
between BC Hydro and other stakeholders [24].
As a consequence, the provincial government issued a letter of
direction in 1996 mandating BC Hydro to undertake water use plans
for all of its facilities within a period of five years. The WUP pro-
gramme, which officially started in 1999, following the drafting of
the WUP guidelines [25] resulted in the development of 23 WUPs
which revised the operating plans of 30 BC Hydro dam facilities, over
a six-year period, at a cost of C$26M [21].
PUSH AND PULL
Looking at the processes tied to the emergence of WUP, it really
seems that action must happen from the bottom-up as much as from
the top-down.
External pressures from outside must also be complemented by
internal shifts in thinking. The timing of these different push and pull
factors, however, seems to play a crucial influence.
Initially, external pressure and bottom-up action by the grassroots
is essential in attracting and focusing the attention of the broader
public and decision-makers on the shortcomings with the system in
place. While such public pressure can, over time, contribute to trig-
gering internal changes in thinking regarding the status quo (eg within
government or an organisation), often denial and deeply entrenched
Below: A view looking upstream at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the
Williston Reservoir
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM APRIL 2010 43
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
political and economic interests can be powerful in disregarding such
voices. Therefore other contextual changes (such as more progres-
sive societal or industrial trends pointing towards new directions) can
assist in furthering changes in thinking. These can be finally triggered
by an external event like a change in government, or a substantial
focusing event (eg an ecological crisis) which creates the final straw,
or tipping point.
Within this broader framework, it is crucial to have the presence
of some enlightened, passionate, visionary leaders that champion the
issue. While it is not essential that they are in a position of authority,
they need to be able to exert their influence in some manner.
Secondly, resources are critical, both financial and in terms of capac-
ity including access to scientific information, technical skills, the latest
thinking, human and managerial resources, etc. While these may be
taken for granted in the developed world, they are generally lacking in
the areas where solutions are often the most urgently needed.
Thirdly, for organisational change to occur, a business case is essen-
tial, which provides the financial incentive to act in an environmental-
ly responsible manner. Increasing evidence shows that it is possible to
be an environmental leader and have a competitive advantage: in the
case of the Bridge WUP, the changes in operating regime that were
agreed to allowed BC Hydro to generate an additional C$1.8M in
electricity, in addition to meeting a number of cultural, environmental
and social benefits [4].
There is also an element of chance that plays a role in bringing
change about, and that is what often contributes to either the opening
of a policy window, or the grasping of the opportunity provided by
it. The policy window which led to the Alouette WUP allowed BC
Hydro, under the direction of government, to try a new approach.
This aimed to explore different ways of managing multiple resource
conflicts and address long-standing concerns regarding fish impacts
on the Alouette river. The WUP process consequently increased
public acceptance of BC Hydro and its operations, thus translating
into enhanced business certainty for the company.
Lucia Scodanibbio explored the factors that led to the
emergence of the water use planning programme as part
of her Masters thesis in the School of Community and
Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia,
under the supervision of Profs Tony Dorcey and
William Rees. A number of interviews with BC Hydro,
government and non-government stakeholders informed
her results, which have been summarised in this article.
She is currently looking for her next opportunity to work
on water resources management and governance issues.
Email: lucia@scodanibbio.com
IWP& DC
References
[1] Skene, W. 1997. Delusions of Power: Vanity, Folly and the Uncertain
Future of Canada’s Hydro Giants. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.
[2] Hoberg, G. 1996. The Politics of Sustainability: Forest Policy in British
Columbia. In: Carty, R.K. (Ed.). 1996. Politics, Policy, and Government in
British Columbia. Vancouver: UBC Press.
[3] BCAFC (BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, British Columbia Wildlife
Federation), Trail Wildlife Association, Steelhead Society, Trout Unlimited
(Spokane Chapter), Sierra Club (U.S.), Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen’s Association, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sierra Legal
Defence Fund and Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. 1997. Submission to the
Commission on Environmental Cooperation Pursuant to Article 14 of the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Report submitted by
SLDF and SCLDF, Vancouver and Seattle.
[4] Mullen-Dalmer, D. 2009. Case Study 12 – Bridge River Water Use Plan. In:
Hirji, R. & R. Davis. 2009. Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies,
Plans and Projects – Case Studies. Washington: The World Bank.
[5] McDade, G.J. 1996. Interim Report of the Special Environmental Auditor
With Respect to the Draining of Downton Reservoir in 1996. Report prepared
for the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.
[6] Campbell River Mirror. 1996. Sierra Club Blasts Hydro. Campbell River
Mirror, p.A11. 20th November 1996.
[7] Glavin, T. 2002. BC Water: Missing and Presumed Drained. Georgia
Straight, p.21-26. 29th August – 5th September 2002.
[8] CEC. 2000. Final Factual Record for Submission SEM-97-001 (BC
Aboriginal Fisheries Commission et al.). Montreal: Secretariat of the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
[9] Ward, P.R.B. and H.A. Yassien. 1996a. Water Releases at the Cheakamus
Power Plant: Review of Licensed Operations. Vancouver: Ward & Associates.
[10] Ward, P.R.B. and H.A Yassien. 1996b. Water Diversion and Storage at
Ten Sites: Review of Licenced Operations Progress Report. Vancouver: Ward
& Associates.
[11] BC Hydro. 1994. Corporate Environmental Plan. Vancouver: BC Hydro.
[12] Smith, C. 1995. BC Hydro Challenged on Low Alouette River Flows.
Georgia Straight. 9th-16th June 1995.
[13] Gallup Canada. 1989. Environment and Taxation Most Concern Canadian
Public. Toronto: Gallup Canada Inc. 31st July 1989.
[14] BC Hydro. 2005. BC Hydro Generation – Sustainability Programs
Generation for Generations. PowerPoint Presentation by BC Hydro. June 2005.
[15] BC Hydro. 1992. Report on the Environment. Vancouver: BC Hydro.
[16] BC Hydro. 1993. The Way Ahead – Corporate Strategic Plan. Vancouver:
BC Hydro.
[17] BC Hydro. 2004. Financing Water Use Plans. Background paper prepared
with DFO and MEI.
[18] BC Hydro. 2002. Water Use Plans Development Phase. Internal Audit
Report prepared for BC Hydro. 19th April 2002.
[19] BC Hydro. 1996. Alouette Generating Station Water Use Plan.
Vancouver: BC Hydro.
[20] ARMS (Alouette River Management Society). 1995. History Sheet
Presented to MELP in the Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC, RE: South
Alouette River Low Flow Concerns. Presented verbally by G. Clayton. 26th
January 1995.
[21] Matthews, G. and E.L. Hill. 2004. Balancing Water Use: Water Use
Planning at BC Hydro. Presentation to 9th Living Lakes Conference “Land
and Water Use in Recreational Development – Business and Corporate Social
Responsibility for Water Ecosystems”, Columbia River Wetlands, BC. 30th
September 2004.
[22] Keeney, R.L. and T.L. McDaniels. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking
about Strategic Decisions at BC Hydro. Decision and Risk Analysis. 22(6):
94-109.
[23] Gregory, R.S., McDaniels, T.L. and D. Fields. 2001. Decision Aiding,
not Dispute Resolution: Creating Insights through Structured Environmental
Decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 20(3): 415-432.
[24] ASC, BC Hydro, Gregory, R.S., McDaniels, T.L. and McDaniels Research
Ltd. 1996. The Alouette Stakeholder Committee: Process, Analysis and
Recommendations – Final Report. Vancouver: BC Hydro.
[25] Province of BC. 1998. Water Use Plan Guidelines. Victoria: Government
of British Columbia.
44 APRIL 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
Rules
o
f en
gag
ement
Working with communities and their representatives
will play an increasing role for developers who want
to deliver projects in a timely way. According to James
Garland, from UK political planning consultancy
Green Issues communications, companies who factor in
consultation and effective engagement will be far more
likely to achieve a positive outcome
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM APRIL 2010 45
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
I
T is widely felt by many working in the planning sector that the
UK government’s delivery of major infrastructure projects has
been glacially slow and resolutely bureaucratic. The govern-
ment’s response to this back in 2008 was to pass The Planning
Act, billed as the most significant shake-up of the planning system
for decades. A number of National Policy Statements, the intro-
duction of the Community Infrastructure Levy and changes to
the Appeals System were supplemented by the setting up of the
Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).
This was welcomed by many with an interest in the delivery of
major and nationally significant infrastructure projects. In theory,
the setting up of a more streamlined, ‘single-tier’ decision-making
process should have helped address some of the causes of delay
and under-investment in infrastructure. Unfortunately, it hasn’t
really panned out like that.
However, as we in the UK enter into the home straight in the
run-up to the general election, we have two competing ideologies
from the two main political parties with regard to the planning
and delivery of infrastructure projects. It is fair to say that the
majority of our clients are not exactly enthused by the prospect of
what may lie ahead.
The Labour Party’s approach over the last thirteen years has
essentially been top-down and target driven. On the face of it,
this lends itself to the delivery of major infrastructure projects.
The introduction of the IPC in 2008 consolidated this and was
intended to bring some certainty to the system. However, the
Conservatives don’t see it this way.
Launching the new planning green paper ‘Open Source Planning’
in London, Conservative leader David Cameron said the plans
show ‘how a system that was controlled by a few can be run by
the many’.
Whilst this is seemingly laudable and is certainly shrewd, politi-
cally, is this really the best way forward in order to kick-start
the economy and deliver much needed infrastructure projects of
national significance? What it does mean, in the short term, is that
there is now a good deal of uncertainty and, frankly, that is the
last thing we need.
One thing the Conservatives are very clear about is that they
will abolish the IPC, who like, Regional Development Agencies
(RDAs), embody everything the Conservatives see as wrong with
the government’s approach. However, the Conservative mantra of
‘localism’ seems reliant on turning NIMBYs into YIMBYs, (their
words, not mine), something that will require a significant change
in attitude in local communities – to say the least.
EFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT
Whether the Conservatives or Labour form the next government
and, at the time of writing, this is anyone’s guess, one thing is for
sure: working with communities and their representatives will play an
increasing role for those developers who want to deliver their projects
in a timely way.
Under the current framework, engaging effectively with local
communities means fewer problems when it comes to the exami-
nation stage. If the examination is in the form of a hearing (which
is more likely if there is significant opposition), each interested
party is entitled to make oral representations. For these reasons
applicants need to adopt a pro-active approach to consultation
at the outset. Those applicants that are seen to be engaging in a
meaningful way with local communities are more likely to mini-
mise opposition from NIMBY groups and will therefore have an
easier time of it as the application progresses.
Whatever the sector, from hydroelectricity to house building and
everything in between, one thing that is relevant to all is a structured
programme of communications and consultation is essential.
Our advice to our clients, irrespective of the nature of the project
we work on is to consider the following key themes:
U Start consulting early: A parallel approach should be taken to
technical work and consultation. Involve politicians, local gov-
ernment and community representatives early in the cycle and
do not present them with a ‘fait accompli”.
U Make sure no one is left out so the project gets off on the right
foot. Those people who represent communities will value being
included in consultation programmes. You ignore these people
at your peril as it is highly likely they will come back to haunt
you at a later stage.
U Tailor your consultation to suit the area: Every developer has
experience of the standard public exhibition, inviting the public
to look at and comment on your proposals. This is one way of
doing things, but not necessarily the best. Consider stakeholder
forums, liaison groups, workshops.
U Avoid public meetings at all costs. Sitting on a stage in a vil-
lage hall may be a cathartic experience for those who turn
up but these meetings are seldom constructive and inevita-
bly those people who make the most noise will dominate the
meeting and give everyone the impression that your scheme
is not wanted.
U Explore innovative ways of consulting with communities. Online
methods are cost effective, inclusive and serve to tick a very
important box with regard to national guidance on best prac-
tice. The setting up and monitoring of social networking sites,
which are becoming an increasingly prevalent tool by opposition
groups, is also recommended.
U Where possible, focus on the silent majority not just the ‘usual
suspects’. People who actively go out of their way to partici-
pate in the consultation process always include those who are
by opposed to your schemes, but are statistically far less likely
to include those who are in favour.
Don’t spend needless amounts of time and money engaging with
those people who are ‘dyed in the wool’ opponents. It is highly
unlikely that you will persuade NIMBYs to completely change
their viewpoint with regard to your schemes and you should
avoid at all costs tit for tat arguments played out in the media.
Instead, give some thought to those people or groups who are
likely to be natural allies or advocates of your proposals and
seek to involve them in the process. Every scheme will have its
supporters, no matter how controversial it is. Often these sup-
porters are less likely to participate in the planning process than
those who oppose it. A far more effective use of resources is to
identify and mobilise these people as a way of demonstrating
support for a scheme.
DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE
In summary, we are in a period of limbo in the run-up to the general
election in the UK. We have two diametrically opposed ideologies
from the two main political parties with regard to the delivery of
major infrastructure projects. Labour’s top-down approach, exempli-
fied by the creation of the IPC, is unpopular with many voters and the
Conservatives have sought to exploit this as a way of making politi-
cal capital. The jury is very much still out on whether or not their
alternative, with its reliance in localism, will prove more successful in
enabling projects to be delivered in a more timely way. My personal
view is that it will not.
However, what remains true, irrespective of the outcome of the
general election, is that consultation and effective engagement
with communities and their representatives will play an increas-
ing role in the delivery of much needed infrastructure and that
those companies who factor this in and plan accordingly will be
far more likely to achieve a positive outcome – and there really
is no getting away with it. This viewpoint is true for most of the
other countries throughout the world.
James Garland is a director at Green Issues
Communications which specialises in community
engagement and consultation.
Email: jamesg@greenissues.com
IWP& DC
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY
46 APRIL 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
CLASSIFIED
www.waterpowermagazine.com
MORE THAN 100 YEARS OF HYDROPOWER ENGINEERING
AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE
260 Dams and 60 Hydropower Plants (15,000 MW)
built in 70 countries
Water resources and hydroelectric development
• Public and private developers
• BOT and EPC projects
• New projects, upgrading and rehabilitation
• Sustainable development
with water transfer, hydropower, pumping stations
and dams.
CO YNE E T B EL LI E R
9, allée des Barbanniers
92632 GENNEVILLIERS CE DEX - FRANCE
Tel: +33 1 41 85 03 69
Fax: +33 1 41 85 03 74
e.mail: commercial@coyne-et-bellier.fr
website: www.coyne-et-bellier.fr
COYNE ET BELLIER
Bureau d’Ingénieurs Conseils
ww w.coyne-et-bellier.fr
Over 40 years experience in Dams.
CFRD Specialist Design and Construction
●
Dam Safety Inspection
●
Construction Supervision
●
Instrumentation
●
RCC Dam Inspection
●
Panel Expert Works
Av. Giovanni Gronchi, 5445 sala 172, Sao Paulo –
B
razil
Z
IP Code – 05724-003
Phone: +55-11-3744.8951
Fax: +55-11-3743.4256
Email: bayardo.materon@terra.com.br
b
a_mater@yahoo.com.br
Lahmeyer International GmbH
Friedberger Strasse 173 · D-61118 Bad Vilbel, Germany
Tel.: +49 (6101) 55-1164 · Fax: +49 (6101) 55-1715
E-Mail: bernd.metzger@lahmeyer.de · http://www.lahmeyer.de
Your Partner for
Water Resources and
Hydroelectric Development
All Services for Complete Solutions
• from concept to completion and operation
• from projects to complex systems
• from local to multinational schemes
• for public and private developers
Norconsult AS
Vestfjordgaten 4,
1338 Sandvika, Norway
Tel: +47 67 57 10 00
Fax: +47 67 54 45 76
company@norconsult.com
Power and Water Management
Norconsult provides multidisciplinary
consultancy services within power
and water resources development.
www.norconsult.com
• River Basin Studies
• Underground Hydropower
• Dam Design
• Turbine Maintenance and
Optimisation
• Transmission and Distribution
• Environmental Impact Assessments
• Financial Engineering
• Power Utility Services
AF-Colenco Ltd
Täfernstrasse 26 • CH-5405 Baden/Switzerland
Phone +41 (0)56 483 12 12 • Fax +41 (0)56 483 17 99
c
olenco-info@afconsult.com • http://www.af-colenco.com
Consulting / Engineering and EPC Services for:
• Hydropower Plants
• Dams and Reservoirs
• Hydraulic Structures
• Hydraulic Steel Structures
• Geotechnics and Foundations
• Electrical / Mechanical Equipment
Successful projects in
Hydropower and Water
Management
For further information please contact
hp.energy@poyry.com and visit www.poyry.com
Construction and
refurbishment of small
and medium hydro
power plants.
.
t
u
r
n
k
e
y
/
E
P
C p
l
a
n
t
s
.
d
e
s
i
g
n
&
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
.
t
u
r
b
i
n
e
s
.
f
ea
s
i
b
i
l
i
ty
s
t
udi
es
.
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
financ
i
ng
www.hydropol.cz
# (47) 67 53 15 06 in Norway
# (55) 11 3722 0889 in Brazil
E-mail: nickrbarton@hotmail.com
Website: http//www.qtbm.com
3
3
5
5
y
y
e
e
a
a
r
r
s
s
e
e
x
x
p
p
e
e
r
r
i
i
e
e
n
n
c
c
e
e
f
f
r
r
o
o
m
m
m
m
o
o
r
r
e
e
t
t
h
h
a
a
n
n
3
3
0
0
c
c
o
o
u
u
n
n
t
t
r
r
i
i
e
e
s
s
Engineering and consulting services
-
Hydropower
- Dams
- Tunnels
- Underground works
-
Special studies
from preliminary studies to final
design, construction supervision,
rehabilitation, monitoring and expert
o
pinion
Lombardi Engineering Ltd.
Via R. Simen 19, P.O.Box 1535, CH-6648 Minusio
Telephone +41 (0)91 735 31 00, Fax +41 (0)91 743 97 37
info@lombardi.ch, www.lombardi.ch
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM APRIL 2010 47
CLASSIFIED
www.waterpowermagazine.com
Yolsu Engineering Services Ltd. Co.
Hürriyet Caddesi No:135 Dikmen, 06450 Ankara,TURKEY
T
el: +90 312 480 06 01 (pbx) Fax: +90 312 483 31 35
www.yolsu.com.tr info@yolsu.com.tr
Prefeasibilty, Feasibility,
Final & Detail Design,
Consulting Services:
• Basin development
• Dams and hydropower plants
• Irrigation and drainage
• Water supply and sewerage
• River engineering
• Highways and railways
Stellba Hydro AG Stellba Hydro GmbH & Co KG
L
anggas 2 Badenbergstrasse 30
CH-5244 Birrhard D-89520 Heidenheim
Switzerland Germany
Telefon +41 (0)56 201 45 20 Telefon +49 (0)7321 96 92 0
Telefax +41 (0)56 201 45 21 Telefax +49 (0)7321 6 20 73
Internet www.stellba-hydro.ch Internet www.stellba.de
E-Mail info@stellba-hydro.ch E-Mail info@stellba.de
721
VISIT OUR WEBSITE
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM
w w w. r i z z o a s s o c . c o m
WATER RESOURCES POWER GENERATION
MINING TUNNELS
To advertise in the Professional
Directory or World Marketplace
section or for more information
contact Diane Stanbury on
tel: +44 (0)20 8269 7854
or email:
dianestanbury@globaltrademedia.com
Copy deadline for May 2010 issue
is 3 May 2010
I N T E R N A T I O N A L
& DAM CONSTRUCTION
Water Power
Classified
opportunities
www.waterpowermagazine.com
The classified section in Water Power & Dam Construction
is a well established and popular section with the magazine’s
combined print and digital circulation of 16,000. Commonly
known as where “the buyer meets the seller”.
Industry showcases
The industry showcase section is made up of eighth
page adverts (95x65mm) with a maximum of eight
key suppliers to a page. It is an ideal section to
promote products and services, raise brand
awareness and shout about company successes.
Showcase adverts are also an ideal way to promote
product literature and generate interest.
Recommended duration: minimum 3 months
Recruitment
The ideal way to promote a company
vac ancy and reach experienced
professionals looking for the next
opportunity to advance their career in the
hydro power & dam construction industries.
For more information, please contact
Diane Stanbury Tel: +44 (0)20 8269 7854 or email: dianestanbury@globaltrademedia.com
WORLD MARKETPLACE
48 APRIL 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
CLASSIFIED
www.waterpowermagazine.com
CYLINDERS
CRANES
GATES
GATES
HYDROMECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
• Custom Design Hydraulic Cylinders
• Servomotors
• Piston Accumulators'
•
Hydraulic Power Units
•
Control Panels
www.doucehydro.com
Douce Hydro FRANCE, USA and GERMANY
Tel France: + 33 / 3 22 74 31 08 ; E-mail: afleroy@doucehydro.com
T
el USA: + 1 / 586 566 4725 ; E-mail: fvandenbulke@doucehydro.com
Tel Germany: + 49 / 177 398 37 78 ; E-mail : ublase-henke@doucehydro.com
BEARINGS
PAN
®
bronzes
and
PAN
®
-GF
self-lubricating bearings
Since 1931
- Superior quality with
• Highest wear resistance
• Low maintenance
• Or maintenance free
-
Extended operating life
PAN-Metallgesellschaft
P.O. Box 102436 • D-68024 Mannheim / Germany
Phone: + 49 621 42 303-0 • Fax: + 49 621 42 303-33
k
ontakt@pan-metall.com • www.pan-metall.com
BEARING OIL COOLERS
H
EXECO, Inc. ... a H
e
at Ex
c
hanger E
n
gineering Co
.
T
el: +1 (920) 361-3440 • Fax: +1 (920) 361-4554
E-Mail: info.wpd@hexeco.com • Web: www.hexeco.com
O
IL COOLERS
For
THRUST and
GUIDE
BEARINGS
CONCRETE COOLING
FILTRATION EQUIPMENT
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM
kuenzamerica@kuenz.com
ww w.kuenzamerica.com
TRASH RAKE CLEANING
POWER HOUSE CRANES
Amer ica I nc.
kuenzamerica@kuenz.com
www.kuenzamerica.com
TRASH RAKE CLEANING
POWER HOUSE CRANES
Amer ica I nc.
CIVIL ENGINEERING:
U Þ`iÀÃ] «ÜiÀ ÕÌÃ >` VÌÀÃ
vÀ `> }>ÌiÃ] ëÜ>Þ }>ÌiÃ]
Ì>i }>ÌiÃ] ÃÕVi }>ÌiÃ
U }iiÀ}] ÃÌ>>Ì >` V
ÃÃ} v V«iÌi Þ`À>ÕV
>` iiVÌÀV ÃÞÃÌià vÀ `> }>Ìi
«iÀ>Ì Õ« Ì >ÕÌ>ÌV ÀiÃiÀÛÀ
ÌÀ} >` VÌÀ ,®
www.montanhydraulik.com
Providing water control solutions through thoughtful engineering,
innov ative design, attention to detail and outstanding customer
service. Contact us for inflatable water control gates and rubber
dams.
PO Box 668, Fort Collins, CO 80522 USA
Tel: 970-568-9844
www.obermeyerhydro.com
HYDRO CASTINGS
• Water turbine components
• Castings from 100 kg to 30 tons
• Latest CAD-CAM capabilities
• Certified Quality Assurance ISO 9001
• Environmental Management System ISO14001
Your contact: Mr. Timo Norvasto, Sales Manager
Lokomo Steel Foundry
Tel: +358 204 84 4222
Fax: +358 204 84 4233
Email: timo.norvasto@metso.com
Web: www.metsofoundries.com
CONCRETE COOLING
• COLD & ICE WATERPLANTS
• FLAKE ICE PLANTS
• ICE DELIVERY & WEIGHING SYSTEMS
• ICE STORAGES
KTI-Plersch Kältetechnik GmbH
Carl-Otto-Weg 14/2
88481 Balzheim
Germany
Tel:/Phone: +49 - 7347 - 95 72 - 0
Fax: +49 - 7347 - 95 72 - 22
Email: ice@kti-plersch.com
Website: www.kti-plersch.com