Mekong River - Think Twice Before Doing Damage That Will Be Irreversible

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Think twice before doing damage that will be irreversible

By The Nation

With wildlife habitat and cultural heritage at stake, dam projects on the lower Mekong River must be debated in public forums

The mighty mekong River, as the world knows it, may never be the same again if the Lao government has its way. There is a growing fear that up to 40 million people could be affected if the Xayaburi Dam and 12 other mainstream dams on the mekong are to go ahead as planned.

The Xayaburi Dam would be the first dam to be built on the lower mekong mainstream. It would displace thousands of people in Laos, disrupt an important fish migration route and cause the extinction of the critically endangered mekong giant catfish, by destroying one of its last natural spawning habitats. The dam is being proposed by Thai company Ch. Karnchang, and over 95 per cent of the power generated would be sold to Egat, the Thai electricity utility.

Environmental organisations around the world and donor countries such as the United States, a major contributor to the mekong River Commission (MRC), have voiced their concern about the possible impact of the dam on the river's ecosystem and the livelihoods of the people who live on this great waterway that runs through the heart of Southeast Asia.

It has been suggested the dams should not proceed until there is an extensive debate on the MRC's strategic environmental assessment and the findings have been revealed.

The purpose of the strategic environmental assessment report is to evaluate the cumulative effects of the proposed mainstream dams. It is hoped that the Lao government will conduct the assessment properly, take its findings seriously and not treat the process as a formality. Its findings should be distributed publicly and be debated throughout the region by all governments and other stakeholders.

The powerful US Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing one day after the MRC announced that it had received official notification from Laos that the country wished to proceed with the first dam, the Xayaburi, on the lower Mekong. The timing of the hearing suggests that Washington is serious about how its aid money is used.

The import of the mekong River's fisheries as a source for food security in the region is well known throughout the world, and the thought of its ecosystem being irreparably disturbed is indeed troubling. Such action could have serious ramifications at all levels - political, social and economic. What is disturbing is the fact that the Lao government, the project developer Ch. Karnchang and the mekong River Commission seem determined to push forward with the Xayaburi Dam despite the absence of a serious public debate on the important issues.

In her statement before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Aviva Imhof, campaigns director for International Rivers, said to allow the Xayaburi consultation process to go forward without considering the findings of the strategic environmental assessment would be like "getting a diagnosis of cancer and then ignoring it".

As a good neighbour, Thailand has a moral obligation to take into consideration the well-being of the people who stand to be affected by the dam's construction. The same concern should also be taken up by the donor countries.

Thai environmental and community groups representing about 24,000 people in five provinces along the mekong River have submitted a letter to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, asking him to cancel the plan to buy electricity from the Xayaburi Dam.

According to the World Wildlife Conservation Fund (WWF), the dam, if built, will block the sediment and nutrients that build the mekong Delta and nourish its immense productivity, which provides more than 50 per cent of Vietnam's staple food crops. Moreover, the dam would alter wildlife habitats downstream in Laos and Cambodia, potentially having a devastating impact on wild fisheries and causing the likely extinction of critically endangered species.

"There must be a rigorous and transparent assessment of the impacts of this dam," said Marc Goichot, sustainable infrastructure senior advisor for WWF Greater Mekong. "It is already very clear that this dam would amplify and accelerate the negative affects of Chinese dams for the mekong delta. What are the other impacts?" he said.

Echoing the concerns of International Rivers, the WWF supports a ten-year delay in the approval of lower mekong dams to ensure a comprehensive understanding of all the effects of their construction and operation. In the meantime, immediate electricity demands can be met by fast-tracking the most sustainable hydropower sites on the lower Mekong's tributaries.

-- The Nation 2010-09-30

[zakk9]

I never stop wondering how humans will do anything in their power to destroy this world. This is greed, egoism and incompetence on the highest level.

[chrisyork]

I approve of (almost) anything that allows Thailand to be energy independent! The political consequences of being dependent on Burma for Natural Gas are obvious and very damaging.

But I do wonder what the life span of such a dam on the Mekong would be. The river carries large quantities of silt and there must be a serious risk of the reservoir silting up in pretty short order.

Chris

[tomyummer]

This attention should have surfaced years ago before the Chinese started to build theirs. This will just make things worse. It especially sucks for Laos with the Mekong being a main water way for the landlocked country.

[cup-O-coffee]

We are way beyond irreversible, in the sense that the big countries are in 5th gear, and going downhill, with a wind at their back, with regards to getting what they want by any means necessary to the survival of their governments and the ones they are sworn to protect. I refer to the silent war over energy resources, natural selection being over-euphamized as being "civility", and the haves and have nots.

I understand the faux "show of concern" by the hypocritical agencies. What I do not understand is that the driving force behind this story (i.e. The War over Natural Resources) is not being addressed as a possible real motive for this concern. Terrorism and Earth worship are being used as a means to limit what weaker nations can and can not do regarding utilization of the precious resources their countries contain. Until they are invaded, they can not damage the Earth (hence this article). When they are invaded - because they might be thinking about something that will affect the national security of a country 12000 miles away - their resources will be raped and sold to the highest bidder.

Why should Laos be scrutinized and villified when compared to, say, China, and its Three Gorges Dam project? Where were these hypocritical bums when that project was going up? The transboundary effects that this massive project is already having on all downstream countries should not be overlooked. The country at the end of the river is going to scream the most, and the self-imposed big brother countries (the protectors of the realm) are going to support them, but only as a means to get their energy-resource-sniffing noses into other people's business, and ignore the real issue; improving the way of life for millions of humans living in squalor.

This seems to be another case of picking on the little guy (simply because they can be picked on with impunity) by turning a well-intentioned project into a long, drawn-out headache. 'Problem is; the pickers are way out there in the guilt department in their deceitful and murderous methods for getting natural resources by land-raping other countries they invade. They are too cowardly to admit that this stupid "extensive debate" is nothing more than a way for the energy hungry nations to get their fingers in on the Laos project and divvy up who gets what and how much, regarding financial profit. Laos would more than likely get the crunbs off the table. Seems the little countries who disagree with the big countries get to be labeled as despots and terrorists. Funny, that.

It's not about care for the environment, carbon footprints, and mother Gaia. That is simply a religion that is being propagated as an excuse to push the expendable people to the outer edges of receiving aid, and fend for themselves as best as possible, until the bigger nations decide how to deal with them.

It is not about caring for people living in squalor. It is plausable that these people have already been slated as collateral damage for the one world government, so why bother until that time? Why try to fis something that is going to be done away with in the future anyways? Can anyone say Pandemic?

It is about "Mommy, he's got more ice-cream than me. Not fair!" Let's keep the ice cream in the freezer until the most powerful have their say, and get their portion agreed upon and secured.

Looks like China can be counted as one of those who gets to eat ice cream, and even get their monstrosity lauded as a wonder of the world.

Laos should consider themselves fortunate not to have a lake of oil under their land! I believe this story, and many like it, points to a trend that will some day place the human being as the most expendable and cheapest (to the truest sense of this word) form of energy in existence. We are headed in that direction. The old saying, "Be a hero, save a whale; Save a baby, go to Jail" isn't far off the point. The apathy over human traffiking supports my view on letting it go until it can be dealt with in a fashion that the more fortunate can rationalize and sleep peacefully at nights.

'Just another opinion, but not as stupid as this charade of a story.

[Humphrey Bear]

I approve of (almost) anything that allows Thailand to be energy independent! The political consequences of being dependent on Burma for Natural Gas are obvious and very damaging.

But I do wonder what the life span of such a dam on the Mekong would be. The river carries large quantities of silt and there must be a serious risk of the reservoir silting up in pretty short order.

Chris

It is normal design practice with large hydro-dams to have silt-release spill-ways that open from the bottom of the dam, the pressure/force of the water pulling the conglomerated silt into the downstream stilling ponds before running in the old river bed.

A hydro-dam does not stop a river from running. It blocks the flow for a time, during it's initial phase, but then retains a fairly constant volume of water (hopefully - depends on droughts and so on) while releasing as much as is in-coming.

These environmental people only think halfway through the problem. As engineers, we go all the way to the logical solutions.

[Humphrey Bear]

This attention should have surfaced years ago before the Chinese started to build theirs. This will just make things worse. It especially sucks for Laos with the Mekong being a main water way for the landlocked country.

The dams built in China deal with the flow of the Mekong in China. Even without dams the amount of water reaching Laos is far less than the amount leaving Laos / Thailand. Around 40% additional water is added by the tributaries in these two countries. It is not just a mass of water from Tibet flowing all the way through to Ca Mau. It is innumerable tributaries along the length of the Mekong that contribute to the overall flow.

Dams will control the flow, as well as providing electric power. Store up water in the monsoon periods, let it out in the drier times, thus making far more of the water useable for agriculture and other purposes. The main river should not be dammed - just the tributaries. This will provide manageable sources of renewable energy - something that environmentalists keep bleating about. But when it's offered they find something else to complain about.

Not to dam these tributaries could leave the area in the same condition as Pakistan, these past couple of months. Would you all prefer that?

[Sydebolle]

And who is knocking on China's door? The issue was brought up by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund); their only relation to China seems to be have the Chinese National animal in the WWF logo, being the Panda bear.

The MRC (Mekong River Commission) would be the appropriate UN-body to address the issue. Interestingly enough the MRC is missing the presently less relevant Burma/Myanmar and ....... China. Hydropower involves "renting" water by professionally storing and subsequent control release whereby power is generated. The Laotians are renting water only; the Chinese steal it by using it for irrigation purposes. So the real culprits are .... the Chinese. Due to watersheds in the central and southern plains of Laos part of that water funnelled off by the Chinese is compensated; the Cambodians and Vietnamese as not as vunerable.

Anyone remember August 2008 when Vientiane almost sunk as, apart from heavy rainfalls the Chinese all of a sudden released more water than they should have (to avoid bursting of their dams)? Well I was there and I could not believe my eyes.

Last not least hardly anyone (apart from me) has been in all these places by car; the Xayabouly province (between the Thai border and the Mekong River from Luang Prabang to Vientiane) will definitely not be that affected. Please refer to the Nakai plateau at Lao's province of Khamouane. The media had a field day when the World Bank's outgoing President Wolfensohn's last act was to sign the grant for Nam Theun 2. Some 2'000 families got relocated (and hardly saw much of the relocation compensation which ended up in the corrupt officials accounts) and that was it.

The Laotians might need help in planning their future enery generation; matter-of-factly the electricity is almost exclusively for Thailand. Its clean energy, brings foreign exchange and prepares Laos to move, with heavy delay, into the 21st century as well. But the Chinese door is too rarely knocked on as nobody dares to do it.

[asiawatcher]

This attention should have surfaced years ago before the Chinese started to build theirs. This will just make things worse. It especially sucks for Laos with the Mekong being a main water way for the landlocked country.

The dams built in China deal with the flow of the Mekong in China. Even without dams the amount of water reaching Laos is far less than the amount leaving Laos / Thailand. Around 40% additional water is added by the tributaries in these two countries. It is not just a mass of water from Tibet flowing all the way through to Ca Mau. It is innumerable tributaries along the length of the Mekong that contribute to the overall flow.

Dams will control the flow, as well as providing electric power. Store up water in the monsoon periods, let it out in the drier times, thus making far more of the water useable for agriculture and other purposes. The main river should not be dammed - just the tributaries. This will provide manageable sources of renewable energy - something that environmentalists keep bleating about. But when it's offered they find something else to complain about.

Not to dam these tributaries could leave the area in the same condition as Pakistan, these past couple of months. Would you all prefer that?

Concur - and the sensibilities of the green activist whilst valid can be laid to rest as the Catfish will not become extinct from a project like this. It may case an interruption in spawning but will revive once the waters full flow and whilst damming the engineers control the water flow so as not to impact heavily on the region. It will end up benefiting both human and animal sensibilities if run properly and there in lies the question. Do the Thai construction companies carry enough honesty to build to engineering specs without allowing safety and construction materials become a third party player to corruption?

[OzMick]

"Thai environmental and community groups representing about 24,000 people in five provinces along the mekong River have submitted a letter to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, asking him to cancel the plan to buy electricity from the Xayaburi Dam."

Right! and yesterday we were told the gas is running out, so Thailand should build a nuclear power station.

Sydebolle: "................... the Chinese steal it by using it for irrigation purposes." This is an interesting concept - rain which falls in China is stolen when used for irrigation in China. because it actually belongs to..............?

Edited September 30, 2010 by OzMick

[dighambara]

We are way beyond irreversible, in the sense that the big countries are in 5th gear, and going downhill, with a wind at their back, with regards to getting what they want by any means necessary to the survival of their governments and the ones they are sworn to protect. I refer to the silent war over energy resources, natural selection being over-euphamized as being "civility", and the haves and have nots.

I understand the faux "show of concern" by the hypocritical agencies. What I do not understand is that the driving force behind this story (i.e. The War over Natural Resources) is not being addressed as a possible real motive for this concern. Terrorism and Earth worship are being used as a means to limit what weaker nations can and can not do regarding utilization of the precious resources their countries contain. Until they are invaded, they can not damage the Earth (hence this article). When they are invaded - because they might be thinking about something that will affect the national security of a country 12000 miles away - their resources will be raped and sold to the highest bidder.

Why should Laos be scrutinized and villified when compared to, say, China, and its Three Gorges Dam project? Where were these hypocritical bums when that project was going up? The transboundary effects that this massive project is already having on all downstream countries should not be overlooked. The country at the end of the river is going to scream the most, and the self-imposed big brother countries (the protectors of the realm) are going to support them, but only as a means to get their energy-resource-sniffing noses into other people's business, and ignore the real issue; improving the way of life for millions of humans living in squalor.

This seems to be another case of picking on the little guy (simply because they can be picked on with impunity) by turning a well-intentioned project into a long, drawn-out headache. 'Problem is; the pickers are way out there in the guilt department in their deceitful and murderous methods for getting natural resources by land-raping other countries they invade. They are too cowardly to admit that this stupid "extensive debate" is nothing more than a way for the energy hungry nations to get their fingers in on the Laos project and divvy up who gets what and how much, regarding financial profit. Laos would more than likely get the crunbs off the table. Seems the little countries who disagree with the big countries get to be labeled as despots and terrorists. Funny, that.

It's not about care for the environment, carbon footprints, and mother Gaia. That is simply a religion that is being propagated as an excuse to push the expendable people to the outer edges of receiving aid, and fend for themselves as best as possible, until the bigger nations decide how to deal with them.

It is not about caring for people living in squalor. It is plausable that these people have already been slated as collateral damage for the one world government, so why bother until that time? Why try to fis something that is going to be done away with in the future anyways? Can anyone say Pandemic?

It is about "Mommy, he's got more ice-cream than me. Not fair!" Let's keep the ice cream in the freezer until the most powerful have their say, and get their portion agreed upon and secured.

Looks like China can be counted as one of those who gets to eat ice cream, and even get their monstrosity lauded as a wonder of the world.

Laos should consider themselves fortunate not to have a lake of oil under their land! I believe this story, and many like it, points to a trend that will some day place the human being as the most expendable and cheapest (to the truest sense of this word) form of energy in existence. We are headed in that direction. The old saying, "Be a hero, save a whale; Save a baby, go to Jail" isn't far off the point. The apathy over human traffiking supports my view on letting it go until it can be dealt with in a fashion that the more fortunate can rationalize and sleep peacefully at nights.

'Just another opinion, but not as stupid as this charade of a story.

WOW, what a pile of Left Wing Elephant Dung..!!

Certainly, this project must be scrutinized and as stated, the reservoir will silt up rapidly.

The best option is Atomic Power, but then the world at large doesn't care for that much either.

I seem to remember that some decades ago, France was protesting the building of such Power plants, but now they provide income to France's slow economy...

Perhaps Thailand should build a dozen Nuclear Power Plants and supply power to all of South East Asia...

[dighambara]

And who is knocking on China's door? The issue was brought up by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund); their only relation to China seems to be have the Chinese National animal in the WWF logo, being the Panda bear.

Last not least hardly anyone (apart from me) has been in all these places by car

The Laotians might need help in planning their future enery generation But the Chinese door is too rarely knocked on as nobody dares to do it.

So, this raises the question of who made you so high and mighty..?? Suggesting that the WWF isn't effective, that no one else one Earth is as knowlegeable as yourself, that the Lao people are too stupid to plan their own future and that China rules the world...??? HMMM

At the very least most of the posters tried to look at this in a positive light - as South East Asia trying to move into a better future, both for their counties and their people.

[terrier123]

Many well written and interesting comments from obviously well read people BUT, how many have seen the (once Mighty) Mekong in full flow?

I have seen it in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and so thankfully live on her Isaan banks. 5 years ago we saw a magnificent high river which, according to the locals, the likes of which had not been seen for 40 years or more. There was no flooding on the riverside only a little inside the town. When I first saw it near Ubon 9 years ago tomorrow, it was tremendous with trees and wooden houses being carried along in her relentless path. Only 3 moths ago the Mighty Mekong was reduced to a trickle because of China's dams. Locals depended upon the River's moods and still do.

Mae Nahm Khong is a beautiful lady and should be shown respect and love.

It will have to be a force bigger and stronger than she to prevent more damage and pillaging to her soul and the people who love, trust and depend upon her for their sheer existence.

Unfortunately, it is entirely up to the (whichever) Thai Government to challenge any further plans from whatever country to drain these valuable resources.

Amen

[anotheruser]

Thailand should put there words into action. They need to stop demanding the power that these dams generate. I have been places in Laos near dams that the power lines just pass over the houses but don't provide electricity for the local populations.

It is rather preposterous for the neighbors of Lao to make such protests when the are the source of the demand. If the Thais make more noise about the matter Lao should cut the cord for a week.

You could say that the Thais are picking on a weaker country but in this case Thailand holds no cards to bring to the table.

It is also apparent that the resorts and Bangkok people don't have one iota of concern for the people in areas like Issan. Last I heard the Thai government was willing to endanger their lives further by building nuclear power plants near Ubon.

If Thailand is unable to meet it's own energy needs it has nothing to say about the means used to provide for it. I am not saying that the dams are the right thing to do ultimately but it is one of the few ways Laos has to climb out of poverty.

I live in southern Laos and have a business there that could ultimately be affected by a dam. The reality for mr unfortunately is that a mega dam in my area would dwarf what tourism brings in with $3 a night rooms.

The project that was being financed by Malaysians in the area would have blocked the only migratory route for fish near Kon Pa Peng.

I can only assume that things are sometimes a two street an tha Laos government could give a fuk about Issan farmers as much as Thailand cares about the average laotian.

The Thai administration and powers that be in fact while they complain about destructive methods of power generation are actively trying to cut the Lao people out of the loop by building potentially disasterous nuclear plants right on their doorstep.

I am firmly against most dams because they are not normally for the benefit of the people of Laos. Although if there is much more money in dams as opposed to tourism what would you do if it was your country?

Laos doesn't exist primarily to be a sort of museum stuck 50 years in the past primarily to make backpackers feel nostalgic.

Hopefully Lao officials will smarten up and charge Thailand the real price for the electricity generated that damages their environment so much. The loss of fish from all projects dedicated to provide Thailand it's bight city lights needs to be added to the cost.

Maybe then Thailand would build more alternative energy or conserve more when it hits their pocketbooks.

Also look at what Thailand has done to their environment over the past 30 years for profit. They aren't in a position to suddenly become evironmental mentors to their neighbors.

LOL sorry that was so ling and riddled with typos but I am using a phone to type this and it gets tedious. Thankfully for everybody here that concludes my rant.

[LaoPo]

Only 3 moths ago the Mighty Mekong was reduced to a trickle because of China's dams.

Incorrect and a myth that China (dams) causes the diminishing Mekong river. The water supply into the Mekong, coming from China is only 16%.

35% of the water supply in the Mekong is coming from Laos (!)

18% from Thailand

18% from Cambodia and

11% from Vietnam

Study the facts by the Mekong River Commission - MRC instead writing your so called facts which are totally incorrect:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3814073

LaoPo

[brahmburgers]

It saddens me to hear about any plans for large dams. I realize, with growing populations of people, that's just one of the items that contributes to 'progress' ...along with larger cities, cities that glob in to one-another, highways, sprawling apartment complexes, gargantuan parking lots, etc etc ad nauseum.

Large dams impact adversely on watersheds. Granted, there are worse things (nuke plants, war damage, chemical spills) - but all stem from one big planetary problem: too many people. The carrying capacity of this planet (for humans) has already been passed. People still propagate like rats in an abandoned KFC.

Currently, there are no wild mammals in northern Thailand, other than rats, mice, bats and a handful of little squirrels. Raptors and large scavenging birds are gone. So too are most types of reptiles.

I was just in Bangkok for 3 long days. That's the picture that most Thais (and farang and SE Asians?) would like to see: endless concrete, tar and steel from horizon to horizon in every direction (note to ladies: that translates to endless shopping also! So it can't be so bad.) Who needs any wild places? If you want some wildness, go look at a picture book or one of those touchy-feely farang TV networks (Discovery, Nat'l Geo, Animal Planet).

Mekong, Salween, those are just two of the larger watersheds that Asians can screw up. There won't be a free running river anywhere in Asia. Once lush valleys will be standing brown water. Today 15 dams on the Mekong, tomorrow, 75 dams (?), what's the limit? Will there be any fish ladders to assist spawning fish?

Edited October 1, 2010 by brahmburgers

[anotheruser]

The answer is no the fish won't be able to migrate. Especially if the Hue Sahong dam is built. Hue Sahong is the only place in the 4,000 island region that fish can migrate year round up and down the river.

[justSumGai]

I never stop wondering how humans will do anything in their power to destroy this world. This is greed, egoism and incompetence on the highest level.

you forgot monumental laziness. Sun shining on that land as it does SOLAR SHOULD BE USED as much as possible. They're LAZY and cheap.

oh, I forgot aggressively stupid.

Did I forget egotistical?

Edited October 2, 2010 by justSumGai

[whybother]

It is normal design practice with large hydro-dams to have silt-release spill-ways that open from the bottom of the dam, the pressure/force of the water pulling the conglomerated silt into the downstream stilling ponds before running in the old river bed.

A hydro-dam does not stop a river from running. It blocks the flow for a time, during it's initial phase, but then retains a fairly constant volume of water (hopefully - depends on droughts and so on) while releasing as much as is in-coming.

These environmental people only think halfway through the problem. As engineers, we go all the way to the logical solutions.

There is also considerable water loss due to evaporation. With the large water surface area of a dam, there is a lot more evaporation than there would be of a river.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

It saddens me to hear about any plans for large dams. I realize, with growing populations of people, that's just one of the items that contributes to 'progress' ...along with larger cities, cities that glob in to one-another, highways, sprawling apartment complexes, gargantuan parking lots, etc etc ad nauseum.

Large dams impact adversely on watersheds. Granted, there are worse things (nuke plants, war damage, chemical spills) - but all stem from one big planetary problem: too many people. The carrying capacity of this planet (for humans) has already been passed. People still propagate like rats in an abandoned KFC.

Currently, there are no wild mammals in northern Thailand, other than rats, mice, bats and a handful of little squirrels. Raptors and large scavenging birds are gone. So too are most types of reptiles.

I was just in Bangkok for 3 long days. That's the picture that most Thais (and farang and SE Asians?) would like to see: endless concrete, tar and steel from horizon to horizon in every direction (note to ladies: that translates to endless shopping also! So it can't be so bad.) Who needs any wild places? If you want some wildness, go look at a picture book or one of those touchy-feely farang TV networks (Discovery, Nat'l Geo, Animal Planet).

Mekong, Salween, those are just two of the larger watersheds that Asians can screw up. There won't be a free running river anywhere in Asia. Once lush valleys will be standing brown water. Today 15 dams on the Mekong, tomorrow, 75 dams (?), what's the limit? Will there be any fish ladders to assist spawning fish?

That is a very good post! In my own culture, we are taught to respect nature. We are taught that we are part of it. We are taught to think about how our actions will impact future generations.

Of course, we do not always do the right thing. That is human nature, I think. But at least we know right from wrong and are not totally ignorant and stupid about our place on the planet and our impact on life.

There are too many people. To meet their needs we are destroying the very thing that gives us life. It is insane. People who do not see this have suspended reality.

[ajarnpot]

well for those that like their laptops, fridges, ac's etc how else do you think you will power these things,

the only real alternative is chopping down the trees , burning them and using what ever coal or gas supplies are close by

so it's that or the dams