Session Description
Impact assessment , especially for hydroelectric projects, has changed substantially over the past four decades, but has it necessarily become better and more effective? Much longer reports in multiple volumes, more sophisticated models, biodiversity offsets, downstream impacts and ecological flows, comprehensive resettlement plans and income restoration plans, erosion and sedimentation, dam safety requirements, standards, new digital technologies and the emergence of AI have transformed professional IA practice in the hydroelectric sector. At the same time, hydroelectric projects continue to confront familiar concerns of the past: weak analysis of alternatives, limited engagement and participation of affected communities, lack of or limited attention to cumulative impacts, strong opposition from communities and NGOs.
This session will call for papers or case studies that demonstrate how these challenges have been or are being managed in those projects, and what role impact assessment has played in the resolution of those challenges in a specific hydroelectric project. The papers will also be requested to contribute examples to identify priorities and improvements for future IA practice in the hydroelectric sector. The session will conclude by developing a concise list of recommendations for further improvement of impact assessment in the hydroelectric sector.
Session Summary
Impact assessment for hydroelectric projects has improved but has it become better and more effective? Projects still confront familiar past concerns, exacerbating community/NGO opposition. This session will demonstrate how these challenges have been managed and what role impact assessment has played in their resolution.
Session Chair
Joerg Hartmann
Sustainable Water and Energy
United States