Thai editorial: Future of the Mekong in the balance on Friday

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Future of the Mekong in the balance on Friday
The Nation

Laos must open consultation on the Don Sahong dam to all stakeholders

BANGKOK: -- It's not just the people who live along the Mekong River who should pay attention to the public consultation on the Don Sahong hydropower project in Laos this week. This is an issue that concerns everyone who cares about the environment and sustainable development.

While the dam is set to generate a modest amount of electricity, its impact on the ecology of the Mekong basin could be dramatic.

Last year Lao authorities informed the Mekong River Commission (MRC) that they were building the 260-megawatt capacity Don Sahong Dam in Champasak province's Khong district. The site is a five-kilometre stretch of the Hou Sahong, a braided channel of the Mekong two kilometres upstream of the Cambodian border. The dam will be 30 metres high and span the 100-metre width of the channel.

Concern has rippled among the millions who live along the river's banks and depend on it for their livelihood because the dam could block fish migration up and downstream and prevent sediment - a major source of fertiliser - from moving downstream.

In June Laos agreed to a process of "prior consultation" on the dam with neighbouring countries in the lower Mekong basin.

Prior consultation is one of a number of requirements under the 1995 Mekong Agreement that aims to promote cooperation in sustainable management of water resources and prevent regional disputes. The consultation process prevents a country from going ahead with a project without first taking its neighbours' concerns into account, though it allow no member country the right to veto a project.

In the latest stage of the process for the Don Sahong project, the MRC will hold a regional public consultation on Friday in Pakse, in southern Laos.

The meeting will be an opportunity, says the MRC, for community activists, government and non-governmental organisations, research institutes and regional and international organisations to find out more and to discuss and share their concerns.

Feedback and recommendations from the meeting, plus other information to aid its evaluation of the project, will be presented to the MRC Joint Committee, a governing body comprising senior government officials from member countries Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

The Pakse meeting marks the second time the MRC, founded in 1995, has undertaken prior consultation, following a similar process in 2010 for the 1260MW Xayaburi Hydropower Project on the Mekong mainstream, 150km downstream of Luang Prabang in northern Laos.

However, prior consultation is not a process to seek approval for the proposed project, but rather a formal forum for stakeholders to raise concerns about potential impact.

Whatever concerns are raised, the Lao authorities retain the right to go ahead with the project without making concessions.

However, as a responsible member of the MRC, Laos must open Friday's forum to all stakeholders in the Mekong basin so that they can raise concerns and provide information that will give as accurate a picture as possible of both the dam's potential benefits and its negative impact.

Only if Laos respects the consultation process by making it inclusive, comprehensive and cohesive will stakeholders, including those whose livelihoods depend on the river, be satisfied enough to let Vientiane make the final decision on the dam.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Future-of-the-Mekong-in-the-balance-on-Friday-30249412.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-09

[Dogmatix]

Funny there is no mention of how the process broke over the much larger Xayaburi dam with Laos refusing to agree to environmental studies requested by Vietnam and Cambodia and declining to sign the minutes of the MRC meeting. Also no mention of the case filed against Xayaburi I'm the Thai Supreme Admim Court requesting an injunction against EGAT and Exim Bank Bank financial involvement. That is what really holds the fate of the Mekong as the MRC has been proved toothless to protect the river.

[englishoak]

The Mekong is already well and truly stuffed along with all the people who rely on it and its ecosystem.

The dams along it and the ones in the pipeline are going to be numerous and guarantee the Mekong is sadly already doomed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower_in_the_Mekong_River_Basin

[chainarong]

Such a vital part of Asia and you have clowns deciding its future, Dogmatix explains it all , if you have no guts for a fight , then you are wasting your breath against a country like Lao, they do what they like and stuff the others (Good ASEAN Partners), they still live back a hundred of years of Junta rule , sound familiar.

[Jeremy50]

Such a vital part of Asia and you have clowns deciding its future, Dogmatix explains it all , if you have no guts for a fight , then you are wasting your breath against a country like Lao, they do what they like and stuff the others (Good ASEAN Partners), they still live back a hundred of years of Junta rule , sound familiar.

The party bosses and their families will reap the cash benefits for hundreds of years, while this once majestic river will just be a dead canal.

[plachon]

Funny there is no mention of how the process broke over the much larger Xayaburi dam with Laos refusing to agree to environmental studies requested by Vietnam and Cambodia and declining to sign the minutes of the MRC meeting. Also no mention of the case filed against Xayaburi I'm the Thai Supreme Admim Court requesting an injunction against EGAT and Exim Bank Bank financial involvement. That is what really holds the fate of the Mekong as the MRC has been proved toothless to protect the river.

Good points, but I don't think the MRC and its stakeholders see its main role is to "protect" the Mekong, but rather develop it "sustainably". As no one can agree on a common definition of what "sustainable" means in practice and the Mekong Agreement is a non-legally binding agreement, the individual countries that border the Mekong can pretty much get away with doing what they like with the river, using the unilateral path of development upstream in China as their ideal blueprint. Water sovereignty rules, especially for Laos, which is proving a smorgasbord of short term profiteering opportunities at the expense of the environment and society by all its richer and more powerful neighbours. In practice, however, there are some checks and balances at play between Thailand and Vietnam's development goals and aims, as these nations now start to exert a slight break on the mainstream activities of their smaller/poorer neighbours, although this clearly failed to halt the project's construction in the case of Xayaburi. Perhaps the judges of the Supreme Court can save the day on Xayaburi, if not the river's biodiversity and ecological health?

[DeepInTheForest]

Funny there is no mention of how the process broke over the much larger Xayaburi dam with Laos refusing to agree to environmental studies requested by Vietnam and Cambodia and declining to sign the minutes of the MRC meeting. Also no mention of the case filed against Xayaburi I'm the Thai Supreme Admim Court requesting an injunction against EGAT and Exim Bank Bank financial involvement. That is what really holds the fate of the Mekong as the MRC has been proved toothless to protect the river.

Good points, but I don't think the MRC and its stakeholders see its main role is to "protect" the Mekong, but rather develop it "sustainably". As no one can agree on a common definition of what "sustainable" means in practice and the Mekong Agreement is a non-legally binding agreement, the individual countries that border the Mekong can pretty much get away with doing what they like with the river, using the unilateral path of development upstream in China as their ideal blueprint. Water sovereignty rules, especially for Laos, which is proving a smorgasbord of short term profiteering opportunities at the expense of the environment and society by all its richer and more powerful neighbours. In practice, however, there are some checks and balances at play between Thailand and Vietnam's development goals and aims, as these nations now start to exert a slight break on the mainstream activities of their smaller/poorer neighbours, although this clearly failed to halt the project's construction in the case of Xayaburi. Perhaps the judges of the Supreme Court can save the day on Xayaburi, if not the river's biodiversity and ecological health?

"... there are some checks and balances at play between Thailand and Vietnam's development goals and aims, as these nations now start to exert a slight break on the mainstream activities of their smaller/poorer neighbours... "

Good points, except for the notion that Thailand is interested in stopping the Xayaburi, given who is buying the electricity from the dam. It seems clear in Dogmatix's post included immediately above, is it not? I suppose the hope would be that the current government would respond to petitions from villagers in the affected areas and overturn EGAT and the Exim Bank's backing of the project, at least partly based on a need to eliminate corruption.

That would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.

Edited December 9, 2014 by DeepInTheForest

[halloween]

A glance at the map reveals the claims that the dam COULD adversely affect fish migration and sediment as total BS.

When discussing a hydro dam's generating capacity it is normal, when not generating propaganda, to indicate its expected annual energy generation rather than peak output. This would depend on water flow in to the dam, and the figure can be easily converted to (millions of) tonnes of coal NOT burnt, for those concerned with such. Compared to the billion dollar 500MW solar stations being built in Oz, a "modest" 260MW COULD generate 2.5 times as much energy if conditions allow it to operate continuously (and no batteries required), do so for many years longer, and require much less energy input in construction (google EROEI).

I suppose it would break a greeny's heart if he had to say something positive about a dam, assuming he could understand that positives exist.

[englishoak]

A glance at the map reveals the claims that the dam COULD adversely affect fish migration and sediment as total BS.

When discussing a hydro dam's generating capacity it is normal, when not generating propaganda, to indicate its expected annual energy generation rather than peak output. This would depend on water flow in to the dam, and the figure can be easily converted to (millions of) tonnes of coal NOT burnt, for those concerned with such. Compared to the billion dollar 500MW solar stations being built in Oz, a "modest" 260MW COULD generate 2.5 times as much energy if conditions allow it to operate continuously (and no batteries required), do so for many years longer, and require much less energy input in construction (google EROEI).

I suppose it would break a greeny's heart if he had to say something positive about a dam, assuming he could understand that positives exist.

And the other 40 or so either in operation building or sanctioned planning ?

I have no problem with Hydroelectric dams and their positives but the sheer volume all along the route WILL change the Mekong and its ecosystem forever.

Age old problem, humanity needs and nature pays

[halloween]

And the other 40 or so either in operation building or sanctioned planning ?

I have no problem with Hydroelectric dams and their positives but the sheer volume all along the route WILL change the Mekong and its ecosystem forever.

Age old problem, humanity needs and nature pays

Change is the only constant. You can moan and whine about it, or embrace it and and attempt to steer it the way that you would like. Dinosaurs and Luddites are losers.

[englishoak]

And the other 40 or so either in operation building or sanctioned planning ?

I have no problem with Hydroelectric dams and their positives but the sheer volume all along the route WILL change the Mekong and its ecosystem forever.

Age old problem, humanity needs and nature pays

Change is the only constant. You can moan and whine about it, or embrace it and and attempt to steer it the way that you would like. Dinosaurs and Luddites are losers.

Oh boy are you showing your ignorance of Asian forward planning. Sok though it wont affect you or yours right ? so no problem ​

[DeepInTheForest]

And the other 40 or so either in operation building or sanctioned planning ?

I have no problem with Hydroelectric dams and their positives but the sheer volume all along the route WILL change the Mekong and its ecosystem forever.

Age old problem, humanity needs and nature pays

Change is the only constant. You can moan and whine about it, or embrace it and and attempt to steer it the way that you would like. Dinosaurs and Luddites are losers.

I am glad that halloween has chosen to post, because for awhile this thread looked as though it would die with six comments. (A thread complaining about a ruined pair of boots elsewhere on this forum garnered 73 replies.)

Comments like "Change is the only constant... you can moan and whine... " aren't exactly shining examples of intelligent argument, but I hope it inspires others to post.

Myself, I would like to see more details provided about the dam. Environmental assessments are never done in this part of the world; at least not in objective fashion.

What seems to be clear from the OP is that the Laos government wishes to circumvent any possible input or objections from other nations that are stakeholders. That doesn't seem like a sound way to go about things. The dam will be 30 meters high... that's not inconsiderable. Seems like it would have to change something, doesn't it? Without an independent EA... how can we make a reasoned decision?

Edited December 10, 2014 by DeepInTheForest

[halloween]

And the other 40 or so either in operation building or sanctioned planning ?

I have no problem with Hydroelectric dams and their positives but the sheer volume all along the route WILL change the Mekong and its ecosystem forever.

Age old problem, humanity needs and nature pays

Change is the only constant. You can moan and whine about it, or embrace it and and attempt to steer it the way that you would like. Dinosaurs and Luddites are losers.

I am glad that halloween has chosen to post, because for awhile this thread looked as though it would die with six comments. (A thread complaining about a ruined pair of boots elsewhere on this forum garnered 73 replies.)

Comments like "Change is the only constant... you can moan and whine... " aren't exactly shining examples of intelligent argument, but I hope it inspires others to post.

Myself, I would like to see more details provided about the dam. Environmental assessments are never done in this part of the world; at least not in objective fashion.

What seems to be clear from the OP is that the Laos government wishes to circumvent any possible input or objections from other nations that are stakeholders. That doesn't seem like a sound way to go about things. The dam will be 30 meters high... that's not inconsiderable. Seems like it would have to change something, doesn't it? Without an independent EA... how can we make a reasoned decision?

What is clear from the OP is that this dam is denigrated with false arguments that are dragged out for EVERY dam. While it is obvious that we have to stop the use of fossil fuels, even if only because they must eventually be depleted, any attempt to use the technologies that are currently viable is met with often unreal objections put forward by people with little or no understanding of the engineering involved with power generation.

If you wish to have intelligent conversation about energy return ratios, capacity factors, and load variability of various energy sources, and the demand for cheap energy by the majority of the population, I am happy to engage with you. Expectations that the world should remain as it is, or inflated claims of what could happen will be derided.

[plachon]

Contrary to Halloween's contention above, the arguments put forward for not proceeding with Don Sahong dam, are specific to the context of this individual project's anticipated impacts. These arguments have been carefully considered by a wide range of individuals and organizations, dating back to at least 2008, when a group of "Scientists concerned for the sustainable development of the Mekong River", sent a letter to a number of governmental agencies, including the MRC, expressing their concern about the impact of the dam on fisheries, aquatic biodiversity, downstream ecosystems and local livelihoods.

Many of the people who signed the letter are recognized experts in their field and since then, a number of other international organizations have expressed their concerns and opposition to the dam project, including WWF and the World Fish Center, which has issued a science brief on the "Don Sahong Dam and Mekong Fisheries". In it they state, "The Hoo Sahong channel, the site of the proposed dam, plays an especially important role in fish migration basinwide" and just as importantly, "There are no effective measures in the region to mitigate the impact of dams on fisheries".

In other words, if the Don Sahong project goes ahead, it will screw up the fisheries potential for millions of people dependent on them upstream and downstream. The project developers are ignoring the opinion of the best experts on Mekong fisheries, including their own consultant who was hired to conduct an EIA on fisheries, by going ahead with the dam and pretending that they can mitigate the impacts. There is no credible evidence to suggest that what they are proposing will ameliorate the level of damage that will inevitably be caused by the dam's construction. There will be numerous other serious environmental impacts besides, which at present are being downplayed by Mega First and the government of Laos.

More background information is available here:

http://www.savethemekong.org/admin_controls/js/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/statement/10sep2014eng.pdf

http://www.internationalrivers.org/campaigns/don-sahong-dam

http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/say-no-to-don-sahong-dam

This is not about hydropower engineering and technology, but about rational options for allowing maximum development benefits for millions of river users and a healthy environment into the future, against much fewer benefits for a handful of investors and relatively small numbers of energy consumers in the short term. Don Sahong is an irrational energy project being pushed by a small clique of profiteers.

[Expat Brad]

Humans are a failed species.......IMHO nothing's going to change. The environment against progress or shall I say profiteering by the powers that be will never win. The G20 summit was only about the profits, being 2% growth and if doing good for the planet costs any of it then it's not gonna happen......We are all Fxxxxd.