To the Friends of the Mekong
& VN 2020 Mekong Group
The contracting parties agree to “make every effort to avoid, minimize and mitigate harmful effects that might occur to the environment, especially the water quantity and quality, the aquatic eco-system conditions, and the ecological balance of the river, from the development and use of the Mekong River Basin water resources.” Article 7 of the 1995 Mekong Agreement, MRC.
“The Mekong River is being threatened by serious problems arising from both the unsustainable use of water and the effects of climate change…But without good and careful management of the Mekong River as well as its natural resources, this great river will not survive.” P.M. Abhisit Vejjajiva, MRC Summit 2010 Hua Hin, Thailand.
UPSURGE OF HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION IN THE LOWER MEKONG
The exploitation of hydroelectricity does not occur only on the Lancang, the name of the Mekong flowing within Chinese territory. It also is going through an upsurge in the Lower Mekong. Laos has an area not much larger than the state of Utah in America and a population of approximately 6.5 million – smaller than that of Saigon, Vietnam. In this tiny country alone, there are at least 77 projects to build dams on the tributaries or main current of the Mekong. Those projects are either in operation, under construction or under evaluation. The lion’s share of the power output of “Lane Xang – the land of a million elephants” is hailed as a foreign exchange earner and consequently earmarked for export to meet the growing demands (from 10% to 15% per year) of its two neighbors Thailand and Vietnam.
In the past, the funding of hydroelectricity projects on the Mekong remained the restricted playground for international financial institutions such as the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Nowadays, funds become more easily available as local commercial banks are allowed to enter the game.
Obviously, there remain numerous drawbacks inherent to the dam projects on the main current of the Lower Mekong. First of all, the existence of the series of hydroelectric dams known as the Mekong Cascades in Yunnan, China poses a serious question as to whether an overall water management policy could be arrived at to ensure that there will be enough water to run the turbines located on the Lower Mekong all year round and allow them to generate the required power output to make their operations profitable. This unfortunate state of affairs is the end result of a situation where the contruction companies are only interested in building the dams without being proficient in hydroelectrical technology.
Through lack of information or willful ignorance – to use Milton Osborne’s words [5], the leaders of the countries bordering the Mekong are only interested in the short-term profits while turning a blind eye to the devastating and long-term impacts that will eventually befall their people. Will the inhabitants of the Mekong Basin be any happier with the unsustainable development they see around them? For millenniums, the gentle people of Laos always look at the Mae Nam Khong, the Lao-Thai name of the Mekong, as the Mother River that brings them an abundant source of livelihood i.e. water, fish, and rice. At the present time, their traditional and tranquil way of life is being greviously disrupted. The politicians – more precisely the Lao leaders – believe that their country is hopelessly backward and in dire need of rapid “renovation”. The solution they opted for is the production of hydroelectricity even at the undeniable cost of destroying the Mother River. Meanwhile the Lao farmers and fishermen are totally left in the dark as far as that threat is concerned. They are not given any say on the issue and even if they do venture their opinion their “non democratic” government will turn a deaf ear to their concerns.
FROM THE XAYABURI TO THE DON SAHONG DAM
The Xayaburi Dam is raising much controversy because it is the first dam to be built by Laos and Thailand on the main current of the Lower Mekong. It is noteworthy to recall that even though a decision to temporarily suspend the Xayaburi Dam Project was reached at the Meeting of the Mekong River Commission in Siem Reap on 12/ 08/ 2011, Laos never made a clear commitment to do so. The spokesperson of the Mekong River Commission, Mr. Surasak Glahan commented: “At the Siem Reap Meeting, the government of Laos didn’t mention the topic [Xayaburi Dam].” Soon after the close of the Meeting, the Mekong River Commission and other member countries have requested Laos to provide them with additional information concerning the dam. To this date, no reply has been forthcoming from the Lao government.
Recently, much attention and discussion have been focused on the small Don Sahong Dam located at the southernmost region of Laos, about 1 km from the border with Cambodia. The dam is built right at the Khone Falls classified as an area rich in global diversity that has a good chance to be classified as a Ramsar Wetland. [The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is an international agreement signed on 02/02/1971 at Ramsar on the southern bank of the Caspian Sea in Iran. Its main objective is to ensure cooperation at the local, national, regional, and international levels to work toward a sustainable conservation and exploitation of the world’s wetlands]. Moreover, the Khone Falls serves as a vital transit point for the fish on their migration from the Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia upstream the Mekong to the northern parts of Laos and Thailand to spawn. To go past the Khone Falls, the fish have to navigate a honeycomb of channels dotted with thousands of islets. The most important among them is the Hou Sahong Channel that stretches for seven kilometers from the Don Sahong to the Don Sadam islands. It is large and deep enough to allow the fish to swim upstream all year long. The Don Sahong Project threatens to bring about the extinction of two rare and precious fish species: the Pla Beuk / Pangasianodon gigas and the Irrawaddy Dolphins that are considered to be flagship species, the symbols of a healthy ecosystem of the Mekong.
The Pla Beuk fish / Pangasianodon gigas [Source: Tan S. Bunwath / WWF Cambodia]
The Irrawaddy Dolphin Mekong [Source: Kratie Province Government, Cambodia]
There are ample evidences pointing to the fact that though Don Sahong is the smallest of the 11 hydroelectric dams on the Lower Mekong (with a wall of only 30-32 meters tall and an output of 240-360 MW) the devastating impacts it visits on the ecosystem of the Mekong particularly on the migratory fish that congregate here are countless. The majority of the fish caught by the Lao and Thai fishermen are those that swim upstream from the Khone Falls. Even the fish that live in the main tributaries of the Mekong like the Mun in Thailand, the Xedon and the Xebanghien in Laos come from the Khone Falls.
Old hands at Lao affairs recognized that the genesis of the Don Sahong Project goes a long way back reflecting the extremely complex political setup of a Laos influenced by regional centers of power. The Lao government is nominally a dictatorship dominated by the Communist Party of Laos that is organized along the Vietnamese model. This fact does not prevent it from being swayed by the feudal system of family run centers of influence. A case in point is the Siphadone family that controls the reins of power in southern Laos. Khamtay Siphadone who served as president of Laos from 1998 to 2006 may no longer holds any official positions in the government but his family still controls a “mini kingdom” in southern Laos including the Khone Falls region also known as See Phan Done in the Champasak Province. Early in the 1990’s, this family gave the green light to a Malaysian firm to build to the north of the Khone Falls a luxurious tourist center that includes: a 5-star hotel with 2,000 rooms, a 18-hole golf course, two casinos and an airport capable of handling Boeing 737s.
This project came to a sudden stop due to the fianancial crisis that befell Asia in 1997. A while later, a second project also involving this tourist center was signed between Khamtay Siphadone’s son who was also the former governor of the Champasak Province with the Malaysian firm named Mega First Corporation Berhad to construct the hydroelectric Don Sahong Dam on the Khone Falls. The electricity generated by the dam will be used to service the tourist center whose majority sharedolder is none other than the Siphadone family. Any surplus power will be exported to Cambodia and Thailand.
Forseeing the disastrous impacts emanating from the Don Sahong Dam on the fishery of their country, members of the Cambodian National Committee of the Mekong addressed a letter of protestation to the Lao Government toward the end of 2007. Their message went unanswered. At one of the various meetings held in Siem Reap in November of the same year, the Cambodian delegation in concert with the NGOs again raised their opposition to the Don Sahong Dam Project and solicited a reply from the Mekong River Commission (MRC) Secretariat. In the aftermath, the MRC sent a “critical” assessment on the Don Sahong Dam to the Lao Government that again gave it the silent treatment. This government went ahead and concluded with the Malaysian company Mega First a Project Development Agreement to go on with the construction of the hydroelectric Don Sahong Dam.
The Don Sahong Hydroelectric Dam 240-360 MW on the Khone Falls [Source: Milton Osborne, The Mekong River Under Threat]
In March of 2008, the Cambodian Prime Minister Mr. Hun Sen went in person to Laos to discuss the Don Sahong Project and its nefarious impacts on his country. According to Milton Osborne, for unexplained reasons, the Cambodian National Committee of the Mekong was ordered to desist from any public criticism of the Don Sahong Project [5].
[ It should be noted that Cambodia is also considering the building of the hydroelectric Sambor Dam. Along with the Don Sahong Dam, the duo is considered to be the two “death traps” to the fish species in the Mekong].
All indications show that the construction of the Don Sahong Dam will proceed ahead and the Lao Government will receive 20% of the shares of this project. The Don Sahong Dam may be smaller than those built on the Mekong’s tributaries in Laos, it nevertheless will give the “coup de grâce” to the most abundant fishery on this planet. The loss of an annual catch of 3 million tons would mean that the millions of people who depend on it for their food source would lose about 80% of their protein intake.
A former official in the Lao hydropower sector, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that the decision by the Lao government to build the Xayaburi Dam had already been taken and “Whatever the other Mekong countries say, they [Laos and Thailand] are determined to go ahead in 2012.”
Piaporn Deetes, Thailand campaign coordinator for NGO International Rivers observed:
“By moving under the radar of the Mekong River Commission, Thailand and Laos have threatened the spirit of regional cooperation and the integrity of the 1995 Mekong Agreement; while it’s no surprise that the dam builder Ch. Karnchang has lobbied extensively for the dam to proceed, it’s completely unacceptable that the Thai government would bow down to the project developer over the interest of its own people.”
In addition, Phillip Hirsch, director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre at the University of Sydney, commented: “Dams have a hugely negative impact even in economic term. It’s not just environmental losses. According to a recent study, the economic cost to replace these ecosystem services has been estimated at around US$ 274 billion.” [8]
What’s more, Laos sent notice to the Mekong River Commission of its intention to proceed with its other dam projects on the currents of the Mekong and its tributaries. No matter how improbable this may seem, it is however taking place before our very eyes.
Apparently, this way of conducting business so peculiar to Laos appears to be single minded and consistent with a policy of: “hear nothing, say nothing, proceed ahead anyway”. This modus operandi in international relations can in no way be considered “civilized” in this 21st century. By so doing, the Lao Government showed that it is not observing the Article 7 of “the 1995 Mekong Agreement” it signed. It has unitarily sought its short-term national interests at the expense of those of its neighbors. To this date, the ability to counsel and coordinate of the Mekong River Commission often proved to be of little or no avail.
& VN 2020 Mekong Group
The contracting parties agree to “make every effort to avoid, minimize and mitigate harmful effects that might occur to the environment, especially the water quantity and quality, the aquatic eco-system conditions, and the ecological balance of the river, from the development and use of the Mekong River Basin water resources.” Article 7 of the 1995 Mekong Agreement, MRC.
“The Mekong River is being threatened by serious problems arising from both the unsustainable use of water and the effects of climate change…But without good and careful management of the Mekong River as well as its natural resources, this great river will not survive.” P.M. Abhisit Vejjajiva, MRC Summit 2010 Hua Hin, Thailand.
UPSURGE OF HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION IN THE LOWER MEKONG
The exploitation of hydroelectricity does not occur only on the Lancang, the name of the Mekong flowing within Chinese territory. It also is going through an upsurge in the Lower Mekong. Laos has an area not much larger than the state of Utah in America and a population of approximately 6.5 million – smaller than that of Saigon, Vietnam. In this tiny country alone, there are at least 77 projects to build dams on the tributaries or main current of the Mekong. Those projects are either in operation, under construction or under evaluation. The lion’s share of the power output of “Lane Xang – the land of a million elephants” is hailed as a foreign exchange earner and consequently earmarked for export to meet the growing demands (from 10% to 15% per year) of its two neighbors Thailand and Vietnam.
In the past, the funding of hydroelectricity projects on the Mekong remained the restricted playground for international financial institutions such as the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Nowadays, funds become more easily available as local commercial banks are allowed to enter the game.
Obviously, there remain numerous drawbacks inherent to the dam projects on the main current of the Lower Mekong. First of all, the existence of the series of hydroelectric dams known as the Mekong Cascades in Yunnan, China poses a serious question as to whether an overall water management policy could be arrived at to ensure that there will be enough water to run the turbines located on the Lower Mekong all year round and allow them to generate the required power output to make their operations profitable. This unfortunate state of affairs is the end result of a situation where the contruction companies are only interested in building the dams without being proficient in hydroelectrical technology.
Through lack of information or willful ignorance – to use Milton Osborne’s words [5], the leaders of the countries bordering the Mekong are only interested in the short-term profits while turning a blind eye to the devastating and long-term impacts that will eventually befall their people. Will the inhabitants of the Mekong Basin be any happier with the unsustainable development they see around them? For millenniums, the gentle people of Laos always look at the Mae Nam Khong, the Lao-Thai name of the Mekong, as the Mother River that brings them an abundant source of livelihood i.e. water, fish, and rice. At the present time, their traditional and tranquil way of life is being greviously disrupted. The politicians – more precisely the Lao leaders – believe that their country is hopelessly backward and in dire need of rapid “renovation”. The solution they opted for is the production of hydroelectricity even at the undeniable cost of destroying the Mother River. Meanwhile the Lao farmers and fishermen are totally left in the dark as far as that threat is concerned. They are not given any say on the issue and even if they do venture their opinion their “non democratic” government will turn a deaf ear to their concerns.
FROM THE XAYABURI TO THE DON SAHONG DAM
The Xayaburi Dam is raising much controversy because it is the first dam to be built by Laos and Thailand on the main current of the Lower Mekong. It is noteworthy to recall that even though a decision to temporarily suspend the Xayaburi Dam Project was reached at the Meeting of the Mekong River Commission in Siem Reap on 12/ 08/ 2011, Laos never made a clear commitment to do so. The spokesperson of the Mekong River Commission, Mr. Surasak Glahan commented: “At the Siem Reap Meeting, the government of Laos didn’t mention the topic [Xayaburi Dam].” Soon after the close of the Meeting, the Mekong River Commission and other member countries have requested Laos to provide them with additional information concerning the dam. To this date, no reply has been forthcoming from the Lao government.
Recently, much attention and discussion have been focused on the small Don Sahong Dam located at the southernmost region of Laos, about 1 km from the border with Cambodia. The dam is built right at the Khone Falls classified as an area rich in global diversity that has a good chance to be classified as a Ramsar Wetland. [The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is an international agreement signed on 02/02/1971 at Ramsar on the southern bank of the Caspian Sea in Iran. Its main objective is to ensure cooperation at the local, national, regional, and international levels to work toward a sustainable conservation and exploitation of the world’s wetlands]. Moreover, the Khone Falls serves as a vital transit point for the fish on their migration from the Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia upstream the Mekong to the northern parts of Laos and Thailand to spawn. To go past the Khone Falls, the fish have to navigate a honeycomb of channels dotted with thousands of islets. The most important among them is the Hou Sahong Channel that stretches for seven kilometers from the Don Sahong to the Don Sadam islands. It is large and deep enough to allow the fish to swim upstream all year long. The Don Sahong Project threatens to bring about the extinction of two rare and precious fish species: the Pla Beuk / Pangasianodon gigas and the Irrawaddy Dolphins that are considered to be flagship species, the symbols of a healthy ecosystem of the Mekong.
The Pla Beuk fish / Pangasianodon gigas [Source: Tan S. Bunwath / WWF Cambodia]
The Irrawaddy Dolphin Mekong [Source: Kratie Province Government, Cambodia]
There are ample evidences pointing to the fact that though Don Sahong is the smallest of the 11 hydroelectric dams on the Lower Mekong (with a wall of only 30-32 meters tall and an output of 240-360 MW) the devastating impacts it visits on the ecosystem of the Mekong particularly on the migratory fish that congregate here are countless. The majority of the fish caught by the Lao and Thai fishermen are those that swim upstream from the Khone Falls. Even the fish that live in the main tributaries of the Mekong like the Mun in Thailand, the Xedon and the Xebanghien in Laos come from the Khone Falls.
Old hands at Lao affairs recognized that the genesis of the Don Sahong Project goes a long way back reflecting the extremely complex political setup of a Laos influenced by regional centers of power. The Lao government is nominally a dictatorship dominated by the Communist Party of Laos that is organized along the Vietnamese model. This fact does not prevent it from being swayed by the feudal system of family run centers of influence. A case in point is the Siphadone family that controls the reins of power in southern Laos. Khamtay Siphadone who served as president of Laos from 1998 to 2006 may no longer holds any official positions in the government but his family still controls a “mini kingdom” in southern Laos including the Khone Falls region also known as See Phan Done in the Champasak Province. Early in the 1990’s, this family gave the green light to a Malaysian firm to build to the north of the Khone Falls a luxurious tourist center that includes: a 5-star hotel with 2,000 rooms, a 18-hole golf course, two casinos and an airport capable of handling Boeing 737s.
This project came to a sudden stop due to the fianancial crisis that befell Asia in 1997. A while later, a second project also involving this tourist center was signed between Khamtay Siphadone’s son who was also the former governor of the Champasak Province with the Malaysian firm named Mega First Corporation Berhad to construct the hydroelectric Don Sahong Dam on the Khone Falls. The electricity generated by the dam will be used to service the tourist center whose majority sharedolder is none other than the Siphadone family. Any surplus power will be exported to Cambodia and Thailand.
Forseeing the disastrous impacts emanating from the Don Sahong Dam on the fishery of their country, members of the Cambodian National Committee of the Mekong addressed a letter of protestation to the Lao Government toward the end of 2007. Their message went unanswered. At one of the various meetings held in Siem Reap in November of the same year, the Cambodian delegation in concert with the NGOs again raised their opposition to the Don Sahong Dam Project and solicited a reply from the Mekong River Commission (MRC) Secretariat. In the aftermath, the MRC sent a “critical” assessment on the Don Sahong Dam to the Lao Government that again gave it the silent treatment. This government went ahead and concluded with the Malaysian company Mega First a Project Development Agreement to go on with the construction of the hydroelectric Don Sahong Dam.
The Don Sahong Hydroelectric Dam 240-360 MW on the Khone Falls [Source: Milton Osborne, The Mekong River Under Threat]
In March of 2008, the Cambodian Prime Minister Mr. Hun Sen went in person to Laos to discuss the Don Sahong Project and its nefarious impacts on his country. According to Milton Osborne, for unexplained reasons, the Cambodian National Committee of the Mekong was ordered to desist from any public criticism of the Don Sahong Project [5].
[ It should be noted that Cambodia is also considering the building of the hydroelectric Sambor Dam. Along with the Don Sahong Dam, the duo is considered to be the two “death traps” to the fish species in the Mekong].
All indications show that the construction of the Don Sahong Dam will proceed ahead and the Lao Government will receive 20% of the shares of this project. The Don Sahong Dam may be smaller than those built on the Mekong’s tributaries in Laos, it nevertheless will give the “coup de grâce” to the most abundant fishery on this planet. The loss of an annual catch of 3 million tons would mean that the millions of people who depend on it for their food source would lose about 80% of their protein intake.
A former official in the Lao hydropower sector, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that the decision by the Lao government to build the Xayaburi Dam had already been taken and “Whatever the other Mekong countries say, they [Laos and Thailand] are determined to go ahead in 2012.”
Piaporn Deetes, Thailand campaign coordinator for NGO International Rivers observed:
“By moving under the radar of the Mekong River Commission, Thailand and Laos have threatened the spirit of regional cooperation and the integrity of the 1995 Mekong Agreement; while it’s no surprise that the dam builder Ch. Karnchang has lobbied extensively for the dam to proceed, it’s completely unacceptable that the Thai government would bow down to the project developer over the interest of its own people.”
In addition, Phillip Hirsch, director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre at the University of Sydney, commented: “Dams have a hugely negative impact even in economic term. It’s not just environmental losses. According to a recent study, the economic cost to replace these ecosystem services has been estimated at around US$ 274 billion.” [8]
What’s more, Laos sent notice to the Mekong River Commission of its intention to proceed with its other dam projects on the currents of the Mekong and its tributaries. No matter how improbable this may seem, it is however taking place before our very eyes.
Apparently, this way of conducting business so peculiar to Laos appears to be single minded and consistent with a policy of: “hear nothing, say nothing, proceed ahead anyway”. This modus operandi in international relations can in no way be considered “civilized” in this 21st century. By so doing, the Lao Government showed that it is not observing the Article 7 of “the 1995 Mekong Agreement” it signed. It has unitarily sought its short-term national interests at the expense of those of its neighbors. To this date, the ability to counsel and coordinate of the Mekong River Commission often proved to be of little or no avail.
FROM THE “CATCH AND CULTURE” IN 2008
Three years back (12/2008), the Secretariat of the Mekong River Commission published a research entitled “Catch and Culture” that raised the following five issues:
[1] What are the characteristics and importance of fish migration on the Mekong? [2] What are the effects caused by the dams on the migratory fish? [3] How effective are the fish-passage facilities for the fish migrating upstream? [4] How effective are the fish-passage facilities for the fish migrating downstream? [5] How can one compensate the fishermen for the losses they suffer from the reduced catch as a result of the dams?
To conclude, the research offered the following observations: (a) the fish population and the natural resources of the Mekong bear a fundamental importance to both the economic as well as social structures of the countries that border the Mekong and the people that live downstream the river; (b) compared to the dams built on the tributaries, those constructed on the Mekong’s main current – particularly on the mid or lower sections – will cause the most harms; (c) considering the huge size of the fish population migrating on the Mekong, the experts involved with the research agreed that the introduction of “fish friendly turbines” and “fish friendly navigation channels” i.e. fish lifts, fish ladders, fish passages…are only helpful in theory. A failed experiment was conducted with the fish ladders on the Pak Mun Dam in Thailand in the 1990’s. Unlike the salmons of North America and in spite of their small sizes, those migratory fish were unable to navigate past the dam to continue their journey upstream. [2]
TO THE “STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT” OF 2010
In the aftermath of the publication of the “Catch and Culture” Research, the Secretariat of the Mekong River Commission requested the independent consultant agency named International Centre for Environmental Management to help it conduct a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) of the hydroelectric dams on the main current of the Lower Mekong. This undertaking lasted for 14 months with the at large participation of the Secretariat of the Mekong River Commission, the National Mekong River Commissions of the 4 member countries, the non-governmental organizations, private sectors and other interest groups. They all contributed in the efforts to collect the data needed by the Secretariat.
The report mentioned the benefits to be derived from hydro power (13,500MW) on the economic development projects, war against poverty, reduction of CO2 as compared to the use of fossil fuel in the production of electricity. On the other hand, the SEA also took note of the long lasting and cumulative risks posed by the dams built on the Mekong’s main current. The dams can bring about widespread negative impacts to long-term sustainable development and “irreversible effects” on the livelihood of the millions of inhabitants of the basin. [1]
The Impacts of the Series of Dams Dowsteams / SEA
1/ Change in the Course and the Character of the River
The dams will transform over half the length of the Lower Mekong into stagnant reservoirs and change the course of the River downstream from the dams. The Mekong will no longer be able to maintain its seasonal “flood pulse”, a vital factor in the continued existence of the Tonle Sap Lake and Tonle Sap River.
2/ Impacts on the Fish Supply and Food Security
The dams will impede the migration of the fish, reduce the areas of the wetlands, and alter as well as destroy the ecosystem that is vital to the fish species in the Mekong. Those changes will bring about a 42% reduction in the fishery equivalent to US$ 500 million per year. As a result, the quality of life and food security would be negatively impacted – especially in the case of Cambodia where the majority of the people derive their main source of protein from the fish. The experts that performed the SEA believed that there is no alternative way that can replace or compensate for the loss in revenue from this fish source. The perfect example is the complete failure of the above mentioned fish ladders at the Pak Mun Dam on the Mun River, a major tributary of the Mekong.
The annual catch of approximately 3 million tons of fish on the Lower Mekong [Source: MRC 09-2008]
3/ Threats to the Aquatic Bio-diversity:
Due to the transformations the river went through, the disturbances in the river current and water environment pose a threat to the richness and diversity of the hydro-system of the Mekong. More than 100 of its fish species are considered “endangered” including the important flagship species that symbolize the well-being of the ecosystem of the Mekong like the Irrawaddy Dolphins and the Pla Beuks or the Giant Mekong Catfish weighing as much as 300 kilograms. Both of those species are facing the threat of extinction.
4/ Changing the Terrestrial System:
Almost half of the earth’s area is used as farmlands and the forests in the Lower Mekong region are recognized as Key Biodiversity Zones - 5% of which classified as National Protected Areas or Wetlands to be preserved according to the Ramsar Convention. The floods caused by the dams will submerge the surrounding lands and seriously impact the habitat of the fauna and flora on this planet. In addition, the electricity distribution grids and the intricate cobwebs of roads also wreak havoc on the ecosystem of the region.
5/ Riverbank Gardening Loss
Riverbank gardens production of the Mekong will suffer a shortfall due to daily water fluctuations and inundation caused by the Mekong dams. This would result in significant loss of income and also reduced vegetable consumption.
Agricultural production will suffer a shortfall due to a combination of factors: flooding of farmlands caused by the dams, reduction of alluvia which is retained in the dams’ reservoirs resulting in the need to use chemical fertilizers at a cost of US$ 57 million per year mainly in Laos.
6/ Reduction in the Content of Alluvia
A 50% reduction of sediment flow in the Mekong will mean a serious drop of the nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen that are essential to fertilize the soil along the riverbanks and the delta (Tonle Sap River in Cambodia, Mekong Delta in Vietnam). Consequently, we will witness a decrease in agricultural production as well as in the fish population of the rivers and coastal areas. A reduction in alluvia content will also create an imbalance in the current flow resulting in increased salt intrusion into the Mekong Delta that has already been undergoing significant changes due to climate change.
7/ Threats to a Stable Livelihood, Traditional Cultures and Local Inhabitants:
The dams will destabilize the livelihood and threaten the food security of over 40 million people who depend on the rich fish source of the Mekong. Furthermore, the loss of agricultural lands and the cumulative effects of climate change will only aggravate the issue of food security in the entire region. The dams will permanently alter the traditional way of life as well as widen the income gap between the rich and the poor thus impairing the efforts in this millennium to eradicate hunger and poverty in all the nations of the world.
8/ Proposals: A Hiatus of Ten Years
The SEA offered several recommendations in order to optimize the contributions of the dam projects toward economic development, social equality and preservation of the basin. On account of the unpredictable impacts caused by the dam projects, the SEA advocates the imposition of a hiatus of ten years (2010-2020) on all dam constructions to allow for additional research and elimination of the existing drawbacks. [1]
The conclusions arrived at in the SEA created quite a stir. It pointed out that the first group that gains monetarily from the projects is not the common people but a small number of financiers and dam building companies. [6] A Mekong that can flow unobstructed by the dams on its main current for at least the next decade as proposed by the SEA’s special task force must be viewed as a victory to all concerned. It would be a win-win strategy to all countries in the basin. That period of ten years should be used to do additional research in order to enrich our understanding of the complex yet extremely fragile ecosystem of the Mekong basin and the disastrous impacts that may emanate from the construction of the dams. Going a step further, it is hoped that a solution could be arrived at where an alternative source of power could be developed to eliminate the need for the building of the mainstream dams and do away with their disastrous impacts altogether.
Jeremy Bird, the former CEO of the Mekong River Commission’s Secretariat, asserted that this SEA is one of the most far-reaching and involved reports ever done on the Basin of an International River. It also highlights the willingness of the member countries of the Mekong River Commission to cooperate and deal with an exceedingly delicate issue. Surprisingly, at the completion of the SEA, the Mekong River Commission displayed an unexplainable timidity to disseminate it and issued a caveat that the conclusions and propositions in the SEA do not represent its opinion. [Sic]
THE MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION AT A CHALLENGING CROSSROAD IN 2012
The Mekong is an International River. Its resources should be shared among the nations bordering its current and not kept as the private preserve of a group of financiers or any particular nation. Unfortunately, in practice, those countries harbor conflicting interests and set different priorities to their development policies. It is fairly evident that sooner or later China will complete the construction of its 14 hydroelectric dams in the series of the Mekong Cascades in Yunnan Province regardless of the impacts it may visit on the Lower Mekong Basin. The recent massive introduction of 12 dam projects on the main current of the Mekong in the Lower Mekong does not bode well for the entire ecosystem of this River.
In the past, the Mekong River Commission has played a rather passive hand at the renewed interests in the dam projects on the Lower Mekong. Environmentalists have called for this intergovernmental institution to assert a more responsible role on this issue. Surichai Wankaew, Director of the Institute of Social Research at the Chulalongkorn University, Thailand stated: “The commission needs to prove it is a useful organization for the public, not just investors”. He added that the Commission should take a new look at its duty. Instead of “facilitating dam construction, it should be a platform for affected people and society to voice their concerns.”
Prior to that, over 200 evironmental organizations and 30 nations had urged the Commission and the donor institutions to stop the construction of the dams.
With the completion of the Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA), the negative economic, social and environmental impacts emanating from the dams on the main current of the Mekong have been indisputably established and made public. Many environmental organizations have joined ranks to voice their concerns about the grave and long-term impacts on the millions of local inhabitants whose livelihood depends on the water and fish source of the Mekong.
Recently, it was announced that Hans Guttman, a Swedish national, has been appointed the new CEO of the Mekong River Commission Secretariat / MRCS to replace Jeremy Bird whose term of duty has recently expired. During these extreme and trying times, this news can be compared to a welcome fresh breeze,
Hans Guttman, the new CEO of the Mekong River Commission Secretariat [Source: MRC]
Hans Guttman is known for his managerial skills. For two decades, this expatriate has lived in the region and managed 50 different development agencies in the Mekong countries. He also worked with the Wetlands Alliance and headed the Environmental Programme for six years (2001-2007). The author of more than 10 published articles, he is regarded as a top expert on aquatic resources management in the Mekong Basin.
On November 14, 2011, Mr. Guttman took over the helm of an agency of 150 staff members and oversaw the two offices of the Secretariat in Vientiane and Phnom Penh at a time when pressure and challenges abound. [10]
THE SPIRIT OF THE MEKONG
It is hoped that with his wealth of experience gained over the years at the Mekong River Commission, Mr. Guttman would be well placed to command a good grasp of the critical issues affecting his organization and that he would be able to effectively steer his ship safely through the turbulent and divisive waters of present day’s geopolitics.
After having been in operation for 16 years (1995-2012), the Mekong River Commission bequeathes to its new CEO these two immediate challenges and a long-range one:
(1) Persuade the member countries of the Mekong River Commission to observe the Spirit of the Mekong Agreement so that all the contracting parties can agree to “make every effort to avoid, minimize and mitigate harmful effects that might occur to the environment, especially the water quantity and quality, the aquatic eco-system conditions, and the ecological balance of the river, from the development and use of the Mekong River Basin water resources.” Article 7 of the 1995 Mekong Agreement, MRC
(2) Convince the Lao Government to maintain regional stability by accepting the SEA’s recommendation to suspend temporarily for 10 years the dam projects on the main current to allow for additional research and come up with solutions to the existing drawbacks.
(3) Implement the “2011-2015 / MRC Strategic Plan”, strengthen and broaden the cooperation with the nations upstream the Lancang-Mekong with a “Whole of basin approach” especially with regards to China. Although almost half the length of the Mekong flows within this country’s borders, it still refuses to become a member of the expanded Mekong River Commission [9]
To overcome the existing obstacles and attain the above objectives would represent a great achievement not only to Mr. Hans Guttman personally but also to the institution named Mekong River Commission whose very “raison d’être” is defined by these objectives.
Mister Guttman will find his duty much more bearable if the civilian social groups would raise their voice in his support. Except for the case of Thailand, the voice heard from the other three Mekong nations sounds rather muted. In the particular case of Vietnam, this nation located at the Mekong’s mouth suffers the most from all the devastating effects coming from this river. It would be an “earthshaking event” for the whole region if a drive calling for the preservation of the Mekong could gather one million signatures out of the 20 million inhabitants in the Mekong Delta. When will the people of the Delta who toil and moil all year round and still have to live under the poverty level be able to raise their voice and be heard?
The Mekong should be a link connecting the nations with each other not a bone of contention or a cause for division between them. Hopefully, 2012 will be a year of healing of past wounds, restoring lost faith and marching toward a common effort of cooperation and development in the “Mekong Spirit” so that a prosperous and peaceful future could be attained for all.
NGÔ THẾ VINH, M.D.
California 02/14 /2012
International Day of Action for Rivers 2012
References:
Three years back (12/2008), the Secretariat of the Mekong River Commission published a research entitled “Catch and Culture” that raised the following five issues:
[1] What are the characteristics and importance of fish migration on the Mekong? [2] What are the effects caused by the dams on the migratory fish? [3] How effective are the fish-passage facilities for the fish migrating upstream? [4] How effective are the fish-passage facilities for the fish migrating downstream? [5] How can one compensate the fishermen for the losses they suffer from the reduced catch as a result of the dams?
To conclude, the research offered the following observations: (a) the fish population and the natural resources of the Mekong bear a fundamental importance to both the economic as well as social structures of the countries that border the Mekong and the people that live downstream the river; (b) compared to the dams built on the tributaries, those constructed on the Mekong’s main current – particularly on the mid or lower sections – will cause the most harms; (c) considering the huge size of the fish population migrating on the Mekong, the experts involved with the research agreed that the introduction of “fish friendly turbines” and “fish friendly navigation channels” i.e. fish lifts, fish ladders, fish passages…are only helpful in theory. A failed experiment was conducted with the fish ladders on the Pak Mun Dam in Thailand in the 1990’s. Unlike the salmons of North America and in spite of their small sizes, those migratory fish were unable to navigate past the dam to continue their journey upstream. [2]
TO THE “STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT” OF 2010
In the aftermath of the publication of the “Catch and Culture” Research, the Secretariat of the Mekong River Commission requested the independent consultant agency named International Centre for Environmental Management to help it conduct a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) of the hydroelectric dams on the main current of the Lower Mekong. This undertaking lasted for 14 months with the at large participation of the Secretariat of the Mekong River Commission, the National Mekong River Commissions of the 4 member countries, the non-governmental organizations, private sectors and other interest groups. They all contributed in the efforts to collect the data needed by the Secretariat.
The report mentioned the benefits to be derived from hydro power (13,500MW) on the economic development projects, war against poverty, reduction of CO2 as compared to the use of fossil fuel in the production of electricity. On the other hand, the SEA also took note of the long lasting and cumulative risks posed by the dams built on the Mekong’s main current. The dams can bring about widespread negative impacts to long-term sustainable development and “irreversible effects” on the livelihood of the millions of inhabitants of the basin. [1]
The Impacts of the Series of Dams Dowsteams / SEA
1/ Change in the Course and the Character of the River
The dams will transform over half the length of the Lower Mekong into stagnant reservoirs and change the course of the River downstream from the dams. The Mekong will no longer be able to maintain its seasonal “flood pulse”, a vital factor in the continued existence of the Tonle Sap Lake and Tonle Sap River.
2/ Impacts on the Fish Supply and Food Security
The dams will impede the migration of the fish, reduce the areas of the wetlands, and alter as well as destroy the ecosystem that is vital to the fish species in the Mekong. Those changes will bring about a 42% reduction in the fishery equivalent to US$ 500 million per year. As a result, the quality of life and food security would be negatively impacted – especially in the case of Cambodia where the majority of the people derive their main source of protein from the fish. The experts that performed the SEA believed that there is no alternative way that can replace or compensate for the loss in revenue from this fish source. The perfect example is the complete failure of the above mentioned fish ladders at the Pak Mun Dam on the Mun River, a major tributary of the Mekong.
The annual catch of approximately 3 million tons of fish on the Lower Mekong [Source: MRC 09-2008]
3/ Threats to the Aquatic Bio-diversity:
Due to the transformations the river went through, the disturbances in the river current and water environment pose a threat to the richness and diversity of the hydro-system of the Mekong. More than 100 of its fish species are considered “endangered” including the important flagship species that symbolize the well-being of the ecosystem of the Mekong like the Irrawaddy Dolphins and the Pla Beuks or the Giant Mekong Catfish weighing as much as 300 kilograms. Both of those species are facing the threat of extinction.
4/ Changing the Terrestrial System:
Almost half of the earth’s area is used as farmlands and the forests in the Lower Mekong region are recognized as Key Biodiversity Zones - 5% of which classified as National Protected Areas or Wetlands to be preserved according to the Ramsar Convention. The floods caused by the dams will submerge the surrounding lands and seriously impact the habitat of the fauna and flora on this planet. In addition, the electricity distribution grids and the intricate cobwebs of roads also wreak havoc on the ecosystem of the region.
5/ Riverbank Gardening Loss
Riverbank gardens production of the Mekong will suffer a shortfall due to daily water fluctuations and inundation caused by the Mekong dams. This would result in significant loss of income and also reduced vegetable consumption.
Agricultural production will suffer a shortfall due to a combination of factors: flooding of farmlands caused by the dams, reduction of alluvia which is retained in the dams’ reservoirs resulting in the need to use chemical fertilizers at a cost of US$ 57 million per year mainly in Laos.
6/ Reduction in the Content of Alluvia
A 50% reduction of sediment flow in the Mekong will mean a serious drop of the nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen that are essential to fertilize the soil along the riverbanks and the delta (Tonle Sap River in Cambodia, Mekong Delta in Vietnam). Consequently, we will witness a decrease in agricultural production as well as in the fish population of the rivers and coastal areas. A reduction in alluvia content will also create an imbalance in the current flow resulting in increased salt intrusion into the Mekong Delta that has already been undergoing significant changes due to climate change.
7/ Threats to a Stable Livelihood, Traditional Cultures and Local Inhabitants:
The dams will destabilize the livelihood and threaten the food security of over 40 million people who depend on the rich fish source of the Mekong. Furthermore, the loss of agricultural lands and the cumulative effects of climate change will only aggravate the issue of food security in the entire region. The dams will permanently alter the traditional way of life as well as widen the income gap between the rich and the poor thus impairing the efforts in this millennium to eradicate hunger and poverty in all the nations of the world.
8/ Proposals: A Hiatus of Ten Years
The SEA offered several recommendations in order to optimize the contributions of the dam projects toward economic development, social equality and preservation of the basin. On account of the unpredictable impacts caused by the dam projects, the SEA advocates the imposition of a hiatus of ten years (2010-2020) on all dam constructions to allow for additional research and elimination of the existing drawbacks. [1]
The conclusions arrived at in the SEA created quite a stir. It pointed out that the first group that gains monetarily from the projects is not the common people but a small number of financiers and dam building companies. [6] A Mekong that can flow unobstructed by the dams on its main current for at least the next decade as proposed by the SEA’s special task force must be viewed as a victory to all concerned. It would be a win-win strategy to all countries in the basin. That period of ten years should be used to do additional research in order to enrich our understanding of the complex yet extremely fragile ecosystem of the Mekong basin and the disastrous impacts that may emanate from the construction of the dams. Going a step further, it is hoped that a solution could be arrived at where an alternative source of power could be developed to eliminate the need for the building of the mainstream dams and do away with their disastrous impacts altogether.
Jeremy Bird, the former CEO of the Mekong River Commission’s Secretariat, asserted that this SEA is one of the most far-reaching and involved reports ever done on the Basin of an International River. It also highlights the willingness of the member countries of the Mekong River Commission to cooperate and deal with an exceedingly delicate issue. Surprisingly, at the completion of the SEA, the Mekong River Commission displayed an unexplainable timidity to disseminate it and issued a caveat that the conclusions and propositions in the SEA do not represent its opinion. [Sic]
THE MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION AT A CHALLENGING CROSSROAD IN 2012
The Mekong is an International River. Its resources should be shared among the nations bordering its current and not kept as the private preserve of a group of financiers or any particular nation. Unfortunately, in practice, those countries harbor conflicting interests and set different priorities to their development policies. It is fairly evident that sooner or later China will complete the construction of its 14 hydroelectric dams in the series of the Mekong Cascades in Yunnan Province regardless of the impacts it may visit on the Lower Mekong Basin. The recent massive introduction of 12 dam projects on the main current of the Mekong in the Lower Mekong does not bode well for the entire ecosystem of this River.
In the past, the Mekong River Commission has played a rather passive hand at the renewed interests in the dam projects on the Lower Mekong. Environmentalists have called for this intergovernmental institution to assert a more responsible role on this issue. Surichai Wankaew, Director of the Institute of Social Research at the Chulalongkorn University, Thailand stated: “The commission needs to prove it is a useful organization for the public, not just investors”. He added that the Commission should take a new look at its duty. Instead of “facilitating dam construction, it should be a platform for affected people and society to voice their concerns.”
Prior to that, over 200 evironmental organizations and 30 nations had urged the Commission and the donor institutions to stop the construction of the dams.
With the completion of the Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA), the negative economic, social and environmental impacts emanating from the dams on the main current of the Mekong have been indisputably established and made public. Many environmental organizations have joined ranks to voice their concerns about the grave and long-term impacts on the millions of local inhabitants whose livelihood depends on the water and fish source of the Mekong.
Recently, it was announced that Hans Guttman, a Swedish national, has been appointed the new CEO of the Mekong River Commission Secretariat / MRCS to replace Jeremy Bird whose term of duty has recently expired. During these extreme and trying times, this news can be compared to a welcome fresh breeze,
Hans Guttman, the new CEO of the Mekong River Commission Secretariat [Source: MRC]
Hans Guttman is known for his managerial skills. For two decades, this expatriate has lived in the region and managed 50 different development agencies in the Mekong countries. He also worked with the Wetlands Alliance and headed the Environmental Programme for six years (2001-2007). The author of more than 10 published articles, he is regarded as a top expert on aquatic resources management in the Mekong Basin.
On November 14, 2011, Mr. Guttman took over the helm of an agency of 150 staff members and oversaw the two offices of the Secretariat in Vientiane and Phnom Penh at a time when pressure and challenges abound. [10]
THE SPIRIT OF THE MEKONG
It is hoped that with his wealth of experience gained over the years at the Mekong River Commission, Mr. Guttman would be well placed to command a good grasp of the critical issues affecting his organization and that he would be able to effectively steer his ship safely through the turbulent and divisive waters of present day’s geopolitics.
After having been in operation for 16 years (1995-2012), the Mekong River Commission bequeathes to its new CEO these two immediate challenges and a long-range one:
(1) Persuade the member countries of the Mekong River Commission to observe the Spirit of the Mekong Agreement so that all the contracting parties can agree to “make every effort to avoid, minimize and mitigate harmful effects that might occur to the environment, especially the water quantity and quality, the aquatic eco-system conditions, and the ecological balance of the river, from the development and use of the Mekong River Basin water resources.” Article 7 of the 1995 Mekong Agreement, MRC
(2) Convince the Lao Government to maintain regional stability by accepting the SEA’s recommendation to suspend temporarily for 10 years the dam projects on the main current to allow for additional research and come up with solutions to the existing drawbacks.
(3) Implement the “2011-2015 / MRC Strategic Plan”, strengthen and broaden the cooperation with the nations upstream the Lancang-Mekong with a “Whole of basin approach” especially with regards to China. Although almost half the length of the Mekong flows within this country’s borders, it still refuses to become a member of the expanded Mekong River Commission [9]
To overcome the existing obstacles and attain the above objectives would represent a great achievement not only to Mr. Hans Guttman personally but also to the institution named Mekong River Commission whose very “raison d’être” is defined by these objectives.
Mister Guttman will find his duty much more bearable if the civilian social groups would raise their voice in his support. Except for the case of Thailand, the voice heard from the other three Mekong nations sounds rather muted. In the particular case of Vietnam, this nation located at the Mekong’s mouth suffers the most from all the devastating effects coming from this river. It would be an “earthshaking event” for the whole region if a drive calling for the preservation of the Mekong could gather one million signatures out of the 20 million inhabitants in the Mekong Delta. When will the people of the Delta who toil and moil all year round and still have to live under the poverty level be able to raise their voice and be heard?
The Mekong should be a link connecting the nations with each other not a bone of contention or a cause for division between them. Hopefully, 2012 will be a year of healing of past wounds, restoring lost faith and marching toward a common effort of cooperation and development in the “Mekong Spirit” so that a prosperous and peaceful future could be attained for all.
NGÔ THẾ VINH, M.D.
California 02/14 /2012
International Day of Action for Rivers 2012
References:
- Strategic Environmental Assessment of Mainstream Dams, MRC, Vientiane,
Lao PDR, 17th Aug 2010 - 31st Dec 2010, http://www.mrcmekong.org/news-and-events/consultations/strategic-environmental-assessment-of-mainstream-dams/
- Catch and Culture – Fisheries Research and Development in the Mekong Region;
MRC Vol 14, N.3; Dec 2008
http://ns1.mrcmekong.org/download/programmes/fisheries/Catch_Culture_vol14.3.pdf - Modeling The Cumulative Barrier And Passage Effects Of Mainstream Hydro Power
Dams On Migratory Fish Populations In The LMB
MRC Technical Paper No. 25; Dec 2009
http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/technical/tech-No25-modelling-cumulative-barrier.pdf - The Don Sahong Dam: Potential Impacts on Regional Fish Migrations, Livelihoods
and Human Health; Ian G. Baird, PhD – POLIS Project on Ecological Governance,
University of Victoria, August, 2009
http://polisproject.org/PDFs/Baird%202009_Don%20Sahong.pdf - The Mekong, River Under Threat; Milton Osborne, Lowy Institute for International
Policy 2009 http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1188
- Testimony of Aviva Imhof, Campaign Director, International Rivers Before
the Senate Committee on “Challenge to Water and Security in Southeast Asia”,
Sept 23, 2010 http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Imhof.pdf
- Foretelling the Mekong River’s Fate: Key Findings of the MRC’s Strategic
Environmental Assessment on Mekong Mainstream Dams; IRN January 21, 2011 http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/6129
- Mekong Battle Delayed; Tom Fawthrop, The Diplomat, December 31, 2011 http://the-diplomat.com/2011/12/31/mekong-battle-delayed/
- MRC Annual Report 2010, MRC 2011 http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/governance/Annual-Report-2010.pdf
- MRC appoints new Chief Executive Officer; Vientiane, Lao PDR, 14th Nov 2011 http://www.mrcmekong.org/news-and-events/news/mrc-appoints-new-chief-executive-officer/
