Paper short abstract:

Risks from dam construction are acute the Himalayas, where earthquake and landslide risk are high, ecosystems are fragile and communities are vulnerable. I will review whether ecosystem service valuation within cost-benefit analysis may, or may not, support better benefit-sharing during planning.

Paper long abstract:

Risks from dam construction are acute the Himalayas, where earthquake and landslide risk are high and ecosystems are fragile. However, multiple dams are planned for the region and have already been constructed, mainly to allow for the export of energy from the region (Baruah, 2012; Dhakal & Jenkins, 2013).

To compound this, those most at risk from negative impacts of dam building in the Himalayas are also those most likely to capture the least benefits. In India, dams have displaced an estimated 2% of the population, with 40% of this population being from tribal and ethnic minorities (Johnston, Hiwasaki, Klaver, Castillo, & Strang, 2011, p. 304). While those communities immediately impacted by the dam may be compensated, those downstream reliant on subsistence fisheries and farming in a different state or country are not always considered (Baruah, 2012).

Careful measures are needed to ensure vulnerable groups share in the benefits from the dam, and that adequate compensation is provided. One way in which to do this is to consider which ecosystem-services may be lost either through dam construction or displacement. Another would be to ensure that cost-benefit analysis is not carried out on an aggregate basis to determine outcomes, but rather differentiates impacts on different groups.

I will review existing dam planning processes in the Himalayas and present my findings on how benefit-sharing processes could be improved in the region. I will review past cost-benefit analyses, how ecosystem-services were taken into account and what impact that had on subsequent benefit-sharing processes.