Last June, fierce protests at Parliament by villagers affected
by the Pak Moon Dam in Ubon Ratchathani led to an independent government
review of the project. The following month, the government agreed to open
all the dam spillways for four months a year to allow for environmental
recovery, fish migration and spawning.
Meanwhile, the World Commission on Dams, established by the World
Conservation Union and the World Bank, has just completed the first
independent analysis of the dam. Edited excerpts follow.
PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND IMPACTS
Project cost
In May 1989, the Cabinet approved a budget of 3.88 billion baht
(US$ 155.2 million) for the project. In 1991, the National Economic and
Social Development Board (NESDB) approved a modified project cost of 6.6
billion baht (US$ 264 million). The final cost tally by EGAT in 1999 was
6.507 billion baht (US$ 260 million).
In nominal terms, the project cost increased by 68% from the original
estimates between 1989-99. Not including taxes and interest during
construction, the cost overruns in nominal terms are 91% over original
estimates in 1988. However, in real terms, (calculated at constant 1998
prices) the actual total project cost did not differ significantly from
the original estimate in 1988.
Compensation and Resettlement costs increased from 231.55 million baht
(US$ 9.26 million) in EGAT's 1988 estimate to an actual expenditure of
1,113.1 million baht (US$ 44.24 million) in 1999. In real terms,
resettlement costs increased by 182%. Compensation for loss in fisheries,
which was unanticipated in the original estimate, accounted for 395.6
million baht by April 1999 (US$ 15.8 million).
Benefits - Hydropower
Pak Moon dam is located at the end of a large watershed where
rainfall and run- off vary considerably between dry and wet seasons.
During wet months, Pak Moon can turbine the daily inflow to serve the four
hour peak demand and can generate power in off-peak hours with surplus
water available. However, during the dry months the plant cannot produce
its full rated capacity for the 4 hour peak demand due to insufficient
water.
The output of the plant depends on the water level in the reservoir and
the tailwater level. The dam's power production peaks in the wet season
when it is least needed in the power system and is lowest in the dry
season when it is most needed. When the water levels in the Mekong river
are very high, the power plant will be shutdown for lack of generating
head. The operation records from the commissioning of the plant in 1994
indicate that Pak Moon's average annual output has been 290 GWh. In Egat's
presentation to the Cabinet and World Bank documents, Pak Moon featured as
a 136 MW run of the river project to serve peak needs. However, following
the rules based on the daily power output data between 1995-99, Pak Moon
can use only 15% of its capacity as reliable 4 hour peak capacity.
The actual dependable capacity of the dam project calculated from daily
power output between 1995-98, assuming that all available power gets
assigned to a four hour peak demand period, is only 20.81 MW. However, the
value adopted by Egat and sanctioned by the World Bank is much higher at
150 MW.
Since 1993, responding to Egat's successful Demand Side Management
(DSM) programme, the sharp four hour demand peak has been replaced by a
flatter 13 hour plateau. During the dry season Pak Moon can supply power
over this extended period at further reduced capacity.
The actual operation of the dam is often different from what was
assumed in the planning studies. This type of operation may be beneficial
from an ancillary services point of view (such as frequency and voltage
regulation, Var control etc.), but the energy benefits will be less than
planned.
Recalculating the project's equalising discount rate assuming that one
would need one 21 MW gas turbine to provide the dependable capacity of a
20.8 MW hydro plant, the current report reaches a value of 7.88% which is
below the shadow cost of capital in Thailand. When the benefits of the
ancillary electricity net support of the dam and the green house gasses
reduction benefit of the dam were included in the evaluation of the dam,
these benefits were not sufficient to make the project economically
justifiable.
Benefits - Irrigation
The Pak Moon project was presented for review to the NESDB in
1988 and to the Cabinet in 1989 as a multi-purpose development project. In
the 1991 World Bank SAR for the Third Power Project, besides hydropower
and irrigation, fisheries appeared as a major benefit from the project.
Irrigation benefits were not included in the economic analysis of the
project by the World Bank in its 1991 Staff Appraisal Report. The
irrigation benefits of a run of the river project were doubtful and this
was known at the time the irrigation benefits were quantified in Egat's
project document.
Benefits-Fishery
About 7% of the project benefits were attributed to fisheries in
Egat's 1988 Project documents. The 1981 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
predicted that fish production from the reservoir would increase
considerably, though some fish species may be affected by the blockage of
river flows by the dam. The fish yield expected from the 60 square km Pak
Moon reservoir was 100 kg/ha/year without fish stocking and 220 kg/ha/year
with the fish-stocking programme. However, run of the river reservoirs
cannot sustain such high yields, as they do not provide the appropriate
habitat for pelagic fish species. In Thailand, even storage reservoirs
that perform better under fish stocking programmes have a fish yield of
about 19 to 38 kg/ha/year. The predicted fish yield from the dam head pond
was too high. A more realistic estimate would have been around 10
kg/ha/year. There has been no evidence to indicate that the fish
productivity of Pak Moon reservoir has reached anywhere near the
anticipated 100 kilogrammes per year.
After completion of Pak Mun, the lower Moon River experienced a decline
in fishing yields with an estimated value of US$1.4 million per annum. In
addition to this decline in fish species upstream led to the closure of 70
Tum Pla Yon traps. The value of the annual catch from these traps is
calculated at US$212,000.
IMPACTS
The 1982-83 Environmental Planning Survey predicted 241
households would be displaced by the project. The actual number of
households displaced by Pak Moon was 1,700. Unpredicted by the EIA, a
large number of households were adversely affected due to declining
fishing yields. Until March 2000, 6,202 households were compensated for
loss in fisheries during the three year construction period. Compensation
for the permanent loss of fisheries has not been given.
UnEXPECTED IMPACTS
Impact on Fish Migration & Fish diversity
Of the 265 fish species recorded in the Moon-Chi watershed
before 1994, 77 species are migratory and 35 species are dependent on
rapids for their habitat. The latest survey after the construction of the
dam recorded only 96 species in the upstream region.
Downstream of the Pak Moon project, one or two species of fish have
completely disappeared from the catch after dam construction. The decline
has been higher in the upstream region, where out of the 149 species
recognised in the present catch 51 species have been caught less
significantly since the completion of the project. Out of the 51 species
the dam has particularly impacted 17 species. As their migration route is
blocked in the beginning of the rainy season, the head pond has inundated
their spawning ground and the fish pass is not performing. Fish catch
directly upstream of the dam has declined by 60-80% after the completion
of the project.
Reservoir Stocking as MitigationReservoir fishery was developed by EGAT
in response to claims of declining fish catch. Total cost of stocking the
head pond with fresh water Prawn (Macrobrachium Rosenbergi) ranged between
US$31,920 and US$44,240 annually between 1995-98. The department of
Fisheries estimates the total annual revenue of fishing yield to range
between 1.2 to 3.2 million baht. However, the estimated annual catch and
revenue for fishermen are too high. The Department of Fisheries in their
revenue estimate included the naturally occurring Macrobrachium species
that can breed in fresh water. The M. Rosenbergi spawns in salt water and
migrates to fresh water and therefore cannot establish a population under
reservoir conditions. For this reason, it may well turn out that the
stocking of M. Rosenbergi in Pak Moon head pond is not generating any
income for the fishermen.
Impact on Livelihood
In the post-dam period fishing communities located upstream and
downstream of the dam reported 50-100% decline in fish catch and the
disappearance of many fish species. The number of households dependent on
fisheries in the upstream region declined from 95.6% to 66.7%. Since the
completion of the project several committees were set up to assess the
number and extent of households affected by loss of fisheries income.
Based on the committee's findings, Egat paid 90,000 baht to each of the
3,955 fishermen in 1995, and it approved payment of 60,000 baht each to
another 2,200 fishermen in March 2000. A large number of households
located upstream of the dam are still waiting to be recognised for
compensation. Unexpected costs of the project included compensation for
fisheries (488.5 million baht had been paid up to March 2000) and
investment in fish and prawn stocking programmes. Till March 2000, 488.5
million baht (US$19.5 million) had been paid as compensation for loss of
fisheries livelihood.
While the government acknowledged the impact on fisheries and agreed to
compensate eligible households at the rate of 90,000 baht for loss of
income during the three-year construction period, mitigation for the
long-term loss of fisheries livelihood is under negotiation. Impact on
RapidsMore than 50 natural rapids were permanently submerged by the
project. These rapids served as the habitat of a number of species of
fish. The implication of the loss of rapids for fisheries was not assessed
in the project's environmental impact study.
Other Environmental impacts
The project has resulted in the loss of riverbank vegetation,
natural forest and community forest. The women in the community harvested
40 edible plants, 10 bamboo species and 45 mushroom species for household
subsistence and small income. A number of medicinal plants were also found
near the Moon riverbank. Loss of these plants and vegetation through
inundation has implications for biodiversity and household food security.
These aspects were overlooked in the environment assessment study for
the project.
WHO GAINED, WHO LOST?
The Pak Moon project was a part of Egat's least cost development
plan to serve the peaking needs of Northeast Thailand. However, as the
project cannot function as a reliable peaking plant due to a number of
constraints, the nature and extent of gain from the power contribution of
the remains a matter of speculation. From the distribution by power
producing types in overall generation since 1988, it is apparent that
hydropower is gradually playing a less important role in power provision.
When it is most needed, during the hottest and driest months, they are
least likely to have the water resources to contribute.
Communities dependent on fisheries for their livelihood upstream and
downstream of the Moon River experienced an ongoing decline in fish catch
for which the government has already paid a considerable amount of
compensation. But while compensation settlement has been reached with a
large number of households for loss in income during the three years of
construction, compensation for permanent loss of livelihood are still
under negotiation. Furthermore, permanent loss of fisheries cannot be
replaced by a one-off cash compensation and the Thai Government is left
vulnerable to ever-increasing claims.
Regarding the issue of fisheries, all stakeholders stand to lose, not
only from a disrupted ecosystem but also from increased expenditure and
unsuccessful mitigation efforts.
The projected prosperity after the dam completion has never
materialised. Villagers who owned land on slightly higher elevations are
able to grow rice as prior to the dam construction. But villagers who were
dependent largely on fisheries for cash income have found no viable
alternative means of living. Along the Moon River, swamps and wetland
forests are parts of the riverine ecosystem. During the rainy season,
these are flooding areas and places for fish to spawn. In the past,
villagers used the area along the river to find bamboo shoots, mushrooms,
native plants and vegetables that they depend on for their subsistence.
During the dry season, they also developed narrow patches of land along
the riverbanks for growing vegetables. In the upper part of the lower
Moon, where banks were not steep, land along the river was developed as
paddy fields. All this is now gone.
As their food and income security has been destabilised, villagers have
sought different ways to cope with the changing conditions. Some have left
their villages to look for alternative employment. Compensation was not
invested in productive assets. Many affected people used the money to
build a new house. Many sold their cattle in order to have cash in hand.
Many also have debts after borrowing from their cooperatives and local
moneylenders.
In other words, short term wage opportunities and one off cash
compensation cannot replace the loss of a productive resource base for the
community.
SOCIAL COLLAPSE
After resettlement, villagers have witnessed many social and
cultural problems. The new social arrangements have disrupted former
social relations and changed patterns of interaction among the villagers.
Before the dam the Mun river served as the stage for their social life.
Villagers met, interacted, developed social networks of exchange, and
helped each other. After the dam, the traditional communal ceremony
usually organised on the riverbank could not be held due to the
submergence of the ceremonial site and, in part, due to the social
disintegration of the communities.
Since the beginning of the Pak Moon project conflicts of ideas and
interest arose between those who opposed the dam and the kamnan and
headmen group.
The conflict was intensified during protests and demonstrations for
compensation. Those who opposed the dam were often discriminated against
so that the conflict over the dam created deep social rifts.
The local community and adversely affected villagers have expended
considerable time and effort over nearly ten years in protests,
demonstrations and negotiations with the government and project
authorities. What became an issue of lost livelihood and a wrangle over
compensation was initially a demand for a say in the decision making
process as it affects their livelihoods. Given the lack of a satisfactory
outcome from their point of view, the process has created tremendous
bitterness.
