CONSENSUS

Montreal’s Archipel Dam

Hydropower Generation

Quebec initiated an interdepartmental evaluation to Flood Control

understand the desirability of a feasibility study that
would evaluate the costs and benefits of constructing a
dam within the St. Lawrence river basin.

Evaluation concluded that a feasibility considering given

factors was justified.

Evaluation also recommended a central authority be Shoreline Restoration

constituted acting as a Project manager for the study.
Montreal’s Archipel Dam
Goal/Objective: To evaluate the costs and benefits
of constructing a dam within the St. Lawrence river
basin..

Execution: A new Body called “Archipel

Secretariat” was formed to supervise the study.

They chose a democratic consensus approach

between all 10 governmental department instead
of recommended central authority approach.

It was believed that this approach will lead to

solution acceptable to all, while protecting the
jurisdictional responsibilities of all departments.

Conclusion/ Evaluation: Apparently avoided the

difficult conflicts but Post study evaluation
concluded that the process was neither effective
nor efficient.
Montreal’s Archipel Dam
What went wrong:: By avoiding recommendation, the central authority, a leadership gap
arose to the decision frame work and veto rights were abused by many participants.

Effectiveness: Recommendations of the study are questionable as it states dam be

postponed for 2 years and the cost for the project had huge irregularities, as the cost
suggested for the entire project was evaluated at CND 35million, which was even lesser
than the cost incurred for the conduction of study itself.

Efficiency: Study itself took 1-2 years more than the necessary with the higher
corresponding costs.
In retrospect, the consensus approach was adopted
to protect the field of jurisdiction of each
governmental departments. Rather than defining the
best project for the community. Although consensus
is highly desirable goal for public studies but
leadership cannot be abandoned in the process.
Attempting to avoid conflict through mandated
consensus simply defeats the purpose of any study in
the first place, except a study to determine what
everyone commonly agrees upon.
MAJOR FINDINGS
Lack Of Leadership
Cost Overruns
Loss In Effectiveness
Loss Of Accountability
Less Coherence/Co-ordination

Lack in Defining
Goal/Objective

Incomplete
Identification Of
Stakeholders

Wrong Trade-Off
 I. Given the results of the study,
did the consensus approach
indeed lead to a solution
acceptable to all? Why wasn’t
QUESTIONS everyone was happy with this
outcome?

? II. Based on this case situation ,

does the consensus approach
lead what is best for the overall
community ? Why (not)?

III. What approach should have

been adopted to determine
what was best for the overall
community?
T H A NK Y OU !
SUBMITTED BY:
Rishab Joshi 2K20/UMBA/31
Annanya Verma 2K20/UMBA/06