As dams loom, Mekong fishermen fear for their future - Feature

[Lite Beer]

As dams loom, Mekong fishermen fear for their future - Feature
by Amelie Bottollier-Depois

WIANG KAEN, August 4, 2013 (AFP) - The waters of the mighty Mekong have sustained generations of families but nowadays its fishermen often find their nets empty and fear hydropower mega-dams will destroy their livelihoods.

Pat Chaiwong has fished the Mekong in northern Thailand for three decades but good days are increasingly rare.

"Some days I can catch fish. Some days I don't catch any," lamented the 67-year-old, one of about two dozen fishermen in the community of Wiang Kaen in the northern province of Chiang Rai.

For many in the community, the reason lies upriver in the Chinese province of Yunnan where dams on the upper reaches of the river disturb the delicate cycle of nature.

"Usually the water would rise (and fall) with the seasons," said fisherman Decha Chaiwong, 48.
Now it ebbs and flows depending on whether the dams are open or closed, he said.

"That's why the fish have decreased."


Today a new threat looms downstream in neighbouring Laos.

The Xayaburi hydropower project is one of 11 planned on the lower Mekong, raising worries for the future of the 60 million people in the region estimated to depend on the river in some way.

The 4,800 kilometre (3,000 mile) long waterway, the longest in Southeast Asia, is home to hundreds of species of freshwater fish including the endangered giant Mekong catfish, according to conservation group WWF.

Environmentalists warn that damming the lower Mekong would trap vital nutrients, increase algae growth and prevent dozens of species of migratory fish -- including the giant catfish -- swimming upstream to spawning grounds.

"If there is the Xayaburi dam, fish cannot lay eggs and the numbers of fish and their breeds decrease.

There will definitely be a big impact," said Niwat Roykaew, president of the Natural Resources and Culture Conservation Network in Chiang Rai province.

Many of the roughly 200 species in the lower Mekong swim upriver to spawn -- one of the most important mass river migrations in the world, according to the Mekong River Commission (MRC).

The hydroelectric project at Xayaburi, led by Thai group CH Karnchang, has sharply divided four Mekong nations -- Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand -- who formed the MRC, an intergovernmental group.

Communist Laos, one the world's most under-developed nations, believes the planned 1,285 megawatt dam -- which will cost $3.5 billion according to state media -- will help it become "the battery of Southeast Asia".

Thailand has agreed to buy most of the electricity generated by the project, but Cambodia and Vietnam fear the dam could seriously affect fish migration and sediment flows, hitting their farming and fishing industries.

Despite the concerns, construction on the main part of the dam began in November with Laos predicting completion by the end of 2019.

Niwat described the decision to go ahead without listening to people's concerns as "a coup d'état against the Mekong River".

"We're the children of the Mekong River. We were born and grew up on the Mekong. It has taken care of us and provided for us. Then one day the dams came," he added.

His association has filed a lawsuit against the state-run Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and the Thai government in an attempt to block the project.

Neither EGAT nor developer CH Karnchang responded to request for comment.

Laos has modified the design to try to minimise the impact, said Hans Guttman, chief executive officer of the Mekong River Commission Secretariat.

The changes include a system to flush sediment through the dams and allow fish to migrate through fish passages, he said.

"It is still obviously up for question whether this sediment flushing will work as envisaged because it has never been tested, and there is also concern about whether the fish passages will work on a structure this big," he added.

In a study published in 2011, the MRC warned that the construction of 11 dams on the river in Laos and Cambodia as well as dozens more on tributaries, could cause fish catch to drop by at least 25 percent by 2030.

Thai villagers are fighting "on behalf of the Mekong" and also for people in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia who have less freedom of speech, said Pianporn Deetes with campaign group International Rivers.

"There are many festivals and traditions connected to the Mekong river," she said, such as the mythical Naga snake that protects the Mekong.

"But if the dams are blocking the river, this means the Naga cannot move upstream," she added.

The same goes for the Mekong giant cat fish, one of the world's biggest freshwater fish which can reach three metres (10 feet) in length and 300 kilos (660 pounds) in weight.

Already threatened by overfishing, only about 200 are estimated to remain, according to a recent study by WWF, which fears that dam construction will drive the iconic creature to extinction.

It has been years since one ended up in fisherman Pat's net.

"In the past, I caught a lot of them but now not at all," he said. "I don't know where they all went."


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2013-08-04

[tomross46]

Not only will the fishermen have problems caused by the Dams. These dams will cause problems for the farmers, Isan could become an arid land. No water to grow rice or any other agricultural product requiring water. Land borders set up by the flow of the Mekong would change therefor causing international problems within Asean. The Dams will also affect Laos Cambodia, Burma, and Vietnam. Was there an Environmental Impact study, if so by whom?

[NongKhaiKid]

You've raised some interesting and scary points and I would doubt if much of a study, if at all, was done.

Remember the 3 Gorges Dam where a million plus Chinese were simply told " Move " ?

[impulse]

It has been years since one ended up in fisherman Pat's net.

"In the past, I caught a lot of them but now not at all," he said. "I don't know where they all went."

I think he may have answered his own question.

Every other major food source is farmed nowadays. But it seems that some folks think they can keep catching enough fish to feed the growing population and there will always be more.

My heart goes out the the families that have fished for generations. Just like it does for the guy whose family has repaired typewriters for eons, and for that last generation of buggy whip makers.

But sooner or later, it's time to move on to a different way of making a living and feeding the family. The only question is, do you move on before or after the very last fish is caught?

That's not an endorsement of the dam, BTW.

[Pikeybkk]

disagree, this is an entirely different issue other than technological progress, if managed correctly all bio-diverse habitats should be able to be maintained in the long run and along with the habitats the traditional occupations which go alongside them but there is the point that over fishing is most likely the reason behind a decline in the catch quantity, all one has to do is look at the markets to see there is scant regard towards sizing or spawning protections.

It has been years since one ended up in fisherman Pat's net.

"In the past, I caught a lot of them but now not at all," he said. "I don't know where they all went."

I think he may have answered his own question.

Every other major food source is farmed nowadays. But it seems that some folks think they can keep catching enough fish to feed the growing population and there will always be more.

My heart goes out the the families that have fished for generations. Just like it does for the guy whose family has repaired typewriters for eons, and for that last generation of buggy whip makers.

But sooner or later, it's time to move on to a different way of making a living and feeding the family. The only question is, do you move on before or after the very last fish is caught?

That's not an endorsement of the dam, BTW.

[impulse]

disagree, this is an entirely different issue other than technological progress, if managed correctly all bio-diverse habitats should be able to be maintained in the long run and along with the habitats the traditional occupations which go alongside them but there is the point that over fishing is most likely the reason behind a decline in the catch quantity, all one has to do is look at the markets to see there is scant regard towards sizing or spawning protections.

When was the last time you went down to the market and bought beef from a wild-shot cow? Or fed your family on grains, veggies and berries you rounded up in the meadow?

Of course, bio-diverse habitats can be maintained. But they aren't going to produce enough to feed the surrounding communities that keep growing in population, never mind with enough left over to barter for, let's say- medicine and gasoline?

If you want to feed fish to the community, they're going to have to import some fish (traded for what?) or they're going to have to farm the fish. The metaphorical river has run dry. They can keep looking at empty nets or they can take some other action.

And sooner than later, the oceans will, too. Hopefully, fish farming technology, regulations, and economics will have caught up by then.

[Pikeybkk]

used to do it quite often in sweden, get wild deer , moose, could go out picking berries , mushrooms, also did it in south africa and australia.

disagree, this is an entirely different issue other than technological progress, if managed correctly all bio-diverse habitats should be able to be maintained in the long run and along with the habitats the traditional occupations which go alongside them but there is the point that over fishing is most likely the reason behind a decline in the catch quantity, all one has to do is look at the markets to see there is scant regard towards sizing or spawning protections.

When was the last time you went down to the market and bought beef from a wild-shot cow? Or fed your family on grains, veggies and berries you rounded up in the meadow?

Of course, bio-diverse habitats can be maintained. But they aren't going to produce enough to feed the surrounding communities that keep growing in population, never mind with enough left over to barter for, let's say- medicine and gasoline?

If you want to feed fish to the community, they're going to have to import some fish (traded for what?) or they're going to have to farm the fish. The metaphorical river has run dry. They can keep looking at empty nets or they can take some other action.

And sooner than later, the oceans will, too. Hopefully, fish farming technology, regulations, and economics will have caught up by then.

[billoutt]

Once water backs up behind the dams the volume of water and hence the quantity of fish will be many times what it was before. Sorry to post a positive note, I know it will annoy the horde of gloom and doomers that infest TV.

[tingtongfarang]

Once water backs up behind the dams the volume of water and hence the quantity of fish will be many times what it was before. Sorry to post a positive note, I know it will annoy the horde of gloom and doomers that infest TV.

Your theory does,nt work with fish which need to migrate.

[DeepInTheForest]

disagree, this is an entirely different issue other than technological progress, if managed correctly all bio-diverse habitats should be able to be maintained in the long run and along with the habitats the traditional occupations which go alongside them but there is the point that over fishing is most likely the reason behind a decline in the catch quantity, all one has to do is look at the markets to see there is scant regard towards sizing or spawning protections.

When was the last time you went down to the market and bought beef from a wild-shot cow? Or fed your family on grains, veggies and berries you rounded up in the meadow?

Of course, bio-diverse habitats can be maintained. But they aren't going to produce enough to feed the surrounding communities that keep growing in population, never mind with enough left over to barter for, let's say- medicine and gasoline?

If you want to feed fish to the community, they're going to have to import some fish (traded for what?) or they're going to have to farm the fish. The metaphorical river has run dry. They can keep looking at empty nets or they can take some other action.

And sooner than later, the oceans will, too. Hopefully, fish farming technology, regulations, and economics will have caught up by then.

In my view the argument presented here has deep flaws, and factual inaccuracies. Neither the metaphorical nor the actual river has run dry, although it is under grave threat. The Mekong fishery is at risk from human activities, no doubt, but there is no reason to discount its importance to the human societies of the region. Nor should we allow it to be trashed because the population is growing and we don't gather nuts and fruits anymore. What sense would that make? We have a huge boon-- an enormous food source provided to us essentially free of charge. We are asked to believe that industrial fish farming-- requiring huge inputs of energy-- could supplant the largest freshwater fishery in the world, as well as those of the oceans. Yeah, that would be a great deal for us. Instead of sustainably harvesting what nature provides-- for free-- we're going to design a parallel system that we will have to throw oceans of oil at to maintain. Anyone who wants that deal can sign up with the major agribusiness corporations, who love to eliminate any competition. A dramatically poorer and less free world, both in terms of finance and human values, will result.

A paper in 2008 called the notion of declining fish catch in the Mekong region "a myth", although it found that the actual fish caught are declining in size and market value.

Despite the lack of clear evidence of a decline in the overall production of the Mekong fish catches in the past, there are actual reasons why we should fear such a decline in the future. The perception of declining fisheries is often based on very real threats, and it is perhaps only a matter of time until those things blamed for the mythical decline result in a real, measurable decline. These threats are multiple, and they affect, not only Cambodia, but, to varying degrees, the Mekong Basin as a whole.

Among the threats that can be listed here are industrial development; upstream damming; disruptive fishing methods, such as explosives, mosquito nets, electric fishing and poisoning; and the use of highly hazardous chemicals imported from neighbouring countries and used indiscriminately, for instance to harvest fish or to preserve dry fish (FACT, 2001; Touch Seang Tana & Todd, 2003). Particularly in Cambodia,

the degradation of wetlands and floodplain habitat caused by increased agricultural activities and the modifi cation of river-flows is yet another reason for concern.

http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/080327_WF_984.pdf

So overfishing is but one factor at play here. At least as important may be factors such as habitat destruction:

Deputy Director of the Living Aquatic Resource Research Centre, Dr. Sinthavong Viravong, told MindaNews the volume of fish in the Mekong has been depleted.

According to Dr. Sinthavong, the decline is mainly due to the decrease in the number of critical breeding and feeding grounds available for young fish.

He said more than a century ago, the Mekong River around Vientiane was linked to flood areas and rice fields via a small stream during the flood season.

“This link gave an opportunity for fish, especially small cyprinids, to be able to reach their breeding habitat during the spawning season,” he said.

Dr. Sinthavong said fish can produce a new generation each year, and the number they produce can cover or replace the number lost to fishing.

http://www.mindanews.com/environment/2013/06/17/fish-catch-declines-in-the-mekong-river/

It is true that the Mekong system, like any natural system, has limits that must be respected. But it has existed and nourished people in the region for millennia. That's all going to go by the boards, thanks to our neoliberal economic system that can only see the value in immediate profits. Good luck to those who come after us. My guess is that if they have the ability to think clearly, they will wonder what we were thinking.

Edited August 4, 2013 by DeepInTheForest

[DeepInTheForest]

Once water backs up behind the dams the volume of water and hence the quantity of fish will be many times what it was before. Sorry to post a positive note, I know it will annoy the horde of gloom and doomers that infest TV.

It must be nice to live untethered to reality.

The combined results from the group indicated that migratory fish resources comprise 71% of the fisheries yield in the LMB. The first sale value of migratory fishes at the time of the survey (2007) was estimated to be US$1.89/kg.

… the lower system produces between 1.2 and 1.5 million tonnes of fish annually, that is, 6 to 7 times more than the whole fishery sector (marine and freshwater) in Australia. Using the figure of 63% of Tonle Sap fish being migratory white fish (van Zalinge et al., 2000), the yield of migratory fish at risk if major barriers are built across the migration route amounts to 1.2 – 1.5 million x 63% = 750,000 – 950,000 tonnes. This represents more than the total fish production of France or New Zealand (around 600,000 tonnes each).

http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2041b.pdf

Edited August 4, 2013 by DeepInTheForest

[hellodolly]

As per usual no one willing to face the real problem just keep on with the band aids. The biggest problem in the world is causing all these problems that Mankind justifies by saying progress we have the technology and here put this band aid on it. The real problem is over population.

[DonaldBattles]

Maybe the government could change from paying rice farmers double what the world market value is to growing catfish. Catfish are easy to grow and if the government would subsidise (pay double the market price for us fish farmers like they do the rice farmers we could buy a new Ford Wildtrack Truck.

[SantiSuk]

Regulation has reportedly worked well in the North Sea (the previously bountiful stretch of water between northern UK and Scandinavia). Quotas and net size regulation is apparently restoring stocks of larger Cod etc with the prospect of much higher volumes in the future.

So - it can work, but good luck with regulating 3,000 miles of waterways and native river fishermen in Thailand and Laos! It's always the farmers who can't see beyond the ends of their immediate noses, not the authorities

[SSSlongtime]

humans ,what strange animals we are ,messing with the world that feeds us

[ironhorse10]

I would like to throw my 2 cents in, I don't know why, But here goes anyway, I lived in the state of Oregon all my life and I know what the dams have done to our fisherys there, they have pretty much riuned the salmon and sturgeon fishing, the sturgeon are now land locked behind the dams, and are being over fished by everyone.The sturgeon can't go into the fish ladders ,as for the salmon the adults can travel up stream to spawn, it's the figerlings that have the trouble coming down, Even with screens around the turbins thousands are killed every day, and even inland there is gulls and pelicans there to pick up stunned fish by the thousands. We even started a program to barge the small fish down passed all the dams, and it really hasn't help that much. As far as the farmers along the river some have been able to have water rights , so they can pump out of the river. and grow their crops, but mostly its dry land farming now. We have talked for years about taking the damns out and making it a free running river again, but that will never happen, to much money in Hydo power. Don't let anyone tell you that the fish will be better after the dams. It won't be, if fact it will be devastating. I am talking about the once Mighty Columbia River. Ruined by 14 dams. Also I want to add with the raise and fall of the river it kills thousand of catfish and bass that spawn in the rocks in shallow water, when the river falls the eggs are out of the water, and this will happen on the Mekong too, sorry to say.

[laobali]

What's the best bait for catfish?

[ironhorse10]

Smaller Catfish??

[laobali]

Smaller Catfish??

Are you being fishetious?

[DeepInTheForest]

I would like to throw my 2 cents in, I don't know why, But here goes anyway, I lived in the state of Oregon all my life and I know what the dams have done to our fisherys there, they have pretty much riuned the salmon and sturgeon fishing, the sturgeon are now land locked behind the dams, and are being over fished by everyone.The sturgeon can't go into the fish ladders ,as for the salmon the adults can travel up stream to spawn, it's the figerlings that have the trouble coming down, Even with screens around the turbins thousands are killed every day, and even inland there is gulls and pelicans there to pick up stunned fish by the thousands. We even started a program to barge the small fish down passed all the dams, and it really hasn't help that much. As far as the farmers along the river some have been able to have water rights , so they can pump out of the river. and grow their crops, but mostly its dry land farming now. We have talked for years about taking the damns out and making it a free running river again, but that will never happen, to much money in Hydo power. Don't let anyone tell you that the fish will be better after the dams. It won't be, if fact it will be devastating. I am talking about the once Mighty Columbia River. Ruined by 14 dams. Also I want to add with the raise and fall of the river it kills thousand of catfish and bass that spawn in the rocks in shallow water, when the river falls the eggs are out of the water, and this will happen on the Mekong too, sorry to say.

"We have talked for years about taking the damns out and making it a free running river again, but that will never happen, to much money in Hydo power. "

Ah, but that is no longer true. You may be pleased to know that certain dams are indeed being removed, particularly in the US. This is due to a variety of factors. Awareness has been growing in many countries of the adverse economic consequences of some dams. The US was one of the first countries to extensively dam its rivers, and some efforts were ill-advised. Most of the removed dams were smaller and did not produce electricity, and thus their removal presented less of an economic consequence. Also, dams have a finite lifetime and can present dangers (from collapse, etc.) in their old age.

Some very large dams in no danger of collapse, though, have recently been removed. This includes the Condit dam in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condit_Hydroelectric_Project) , and the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha river in the state of Washington. For some fascinating time-lapse stuff, see the links below.

http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/time-lapse-videos-breaching-the-elwha-dams/

Dam removal is a new technology, and there is much that is not well understood. Areas where dams have been removed, like the Elwha river, are studied by ecologists, obviously. Removal must be done carefully, lest toxins stored behind the dams be loosed on downstream areas. And there are costs involved, at least in the short term. But scientists are pretty upbeat about the ability of rivers to restore themselves. Who will pay for removal can be a matter of contention-- the public often winds up footing part of the bill.

The Carmel Valley in California is slated for dam removal starting this year. Siltation caused the dams to lose effectiveness...

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23508105/californias-biggest-dam-removal-project-history-begins-carmel

The idea is spreading to other industrialized countries as well.

Germany: http://digital.library.ucr.edu/cdri/?keywords=Sediment%20and%20channel%20dynamics&author=&dam=&river=&&title=&sort=titledesc&searchresult=26

Australia: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049180902978165#preview

France: http://www.rivernet.org/general/dams/decommissioning/decom3_e.htm

You can google around and see for yourself what's going on in your home country.

Edited August 5, 2013 by DeepInTheForest

[OzMick]

Once water backs up behind the dams the volume of water and hence the quantity of fish will be many times what it was before. Sorry to post a positive note, I know it will annoy the horde of gloom and doomers that infest TV.

Your theory does,nt work with fish which need to migrate.

But it does work with those fish that don't need to migrate.

[OzMick]

Note this well "1,285 megawatt dam -- which will cost $3.5 billion" and compare it to the the 150MW solar power stations being built in oz at $1 billion each. And at the stupid price being offered here for solar power, that dam would generate B8 million per HOUR while it is operating at full output, with virtually zero operating cost.

Of course the price paid for that energy will be nowhere near that price even though the energy is much more valuable than solar energy, being available 24/7, controllable and able to change output rapidly for "load following'.

Edited August 6, 2013 by OzMick

[OzMick]

"We have talked for years about taking the damns out and making it a free running river again, but that will never happen, to much money in Hydo power. "

Ah, but that is no longer true. You may be pleased to know that certain dams are indeed being removed, particularly in the US. This is due to a variety of factors. Awareness has been growing in many countries of the adverse economic consequences of some dams. The US was one of the first countries to extensively dam its rivers, and some efforts were ill-advised. Most of the removed dams were smaller and did not produce electricity, and thus their removal presented less of an economic consequence. Also, dams have a finite lifetime and can present dangers (from collapse, etc.) in their old age.

Some very large dams in no danger of collapse, though, have recently been removed. This includes the Condit dam in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condit_Hydroelectric_Project) , and the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha river in the state of Washington. For some fascinating time-lapse stuff, see the links below.

http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/time-lapse-videos-breaching-the-elwha-dams/

Dam removal is a new technology, and there is much that is not well understood. Areas where dams have been removed, like the Elwha river, are studied by ecologists, obviously. Removal must be done carefully, lest toxins stored behind the dams be loosed on downstream areas. And there are costs involved, at least in the short term. But scientists are pretty upbeat about the ability of rivers to restore themselves. Who will pay for removal can be a matter of contention-- the public often winds up footing part of the bill.

The Carmel Valley in California is slated for dam removal starting this year. Siltation caused the dams to lose effectiveness...

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23508105/californias-biggest-dam-removal-project-history-begins-carmel

The idea is spreading to other industrialized countries as well.

Germany: http://digital.library.ucr.edu/cdri/?keywords=Sediment%20and%20channel%20dynamics&author=&dam=&river=&&title=&sort=titledesc&searchresult=26

Australia: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049180902978165#preview

France: http://www.rivernet.org/general/dams/decommissioning/decom3_e.htm

You can google around and see for yourself what's going on in your home country.

Siltation caused the dams to lose effectiveness..........but of course they can be desilted, and desilting is being carried out all over the world.