| |
Dam just generates controversy
Bangkok Post, Nov 01, 02
http://search.bangkokpost.co.th/bkkpost/2002/nov2002/bp20021101/news/01nov2002_news45.html
Egat has very little to show for all the effort it has
put into building and defending Thailand's most criticised dam. This effort,
and the studies it has spawned, is about the only real energy the dam has
generated.
VASANA CHINVARAKORN
The approaches to academic research adopted by the Thai
state are a subject worthy of investigation in themselves. Whenever a
project heaped in controversy is put forward, one after another research
team is commissioned to conduct a ``feasibility study'', more often than not
to build support for its implementation.
Scores of research reports can accumulate on an unpopular state project,
with any that are critical invariably ending up on some politician's or
civil servant's shelf to gather dust. And the project goes forward.
The Pak Moon dam in Ubon Ratchathani is a classic example of this practice.
A number of studies conducted over the years have revealed how this
run-of-river dam has contributed very little to the nation's energy grid,
while at the same time causing disaster to both the environment and the
communities living nearby. These studies have consistently been ignored, and
sometimes condemned _ and then another research team is appointed to carry
out similar work. All that can be said in support of this practice is that
it distributes income fairly evenly among intellectuals and so preserves the
status quo.
The latest study to follow this course was conducted by Ubon Ratchathani
University. Following a decade of protests against the dam by local
communities and assorted interest groups, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra
last year ordered the temporary opening of the dam's sluice gates and an
evaluation study to be conducted by a local educational institute. Hence the
Ubon research team.
The study took almost 12 months to complete. And its recommendations were
duly ignored.
The study suggested that the dam's gates be opened for five years but, on
Oct 1, the cabinet decided that they should be closed again, effective
today, Nov 1. The cabinet ruled that the gates would be opened for just four
months a year, from July to October, leaving the dam to generate electricity
for the remaining eight months.
The resolution was astounding. It defied all laws of logic and the weight of
evidence presented in the university's state-funded report. The Ubon
research team found that ``the stability of the lower Northeast region's
electric power distribution system can be maintained without the Pak Moon
dam''. The researchers based their findings on statistics provided by the
Electricity Generating Authority (Egat), the developer and operator of the
dam.
Egat data for the period 1994 and 2001 showed that the Pak Moon dam
generated roughly 286 million units (1 unit = 1 kilowatt per hour) per year,
worth about 300 million baht per year to the state.
The university also noted the fluctuating nature of the dam's power
generation. It generates the least electricity from January to May, stepping
up slightly from June through September, and then entering its most
productive period during the cooler months of October to December. The dam
generates as little as 56.76 Megawatts (MW) in February, rising to a peak of
123 MW in November.
The Ubon University researchers mentioned two key constraints on the dam's
operations.
During the rainy season from June to September, there is usually little
difference in the level of the water on the two sides of the dam, a crucial
factor in running the turbines. In other words, the run-of-river dam cannot
operate to its maximum capacity of 136 MWs during this period.
During the dry season, from late February to early May, the dam cannot store
large amounts of water for fear of flooding the Kaeng Sapue rapids a little
way downstream. This would destroy one of the province's principal tourist
attractions.
The study team said: ``[T]he limitation of using the dam as a source of
electricity lies in the fact that while peak power demand is highest [during
the hot season, especially in April], the dam has a low capacity to generate
electricity... [T]his is because water volume is less than in other
seasons.'' Hence the negligible level of energy generated during those
months.
It remains to be seen what economic benefits the Thaksin cabinet had in mind
when it came up with its Oct 1 resolution. If the plans to build two
coal-fired power plants in Prachuap Khiri Khan, which together would
generate about 2,100 MWs, can be postponed, how can the paltry amount of
electricity generated by the Pak Moon dam (from 56 MWs in February to 92 MWs
in June) help strengthen national energy security? What about the current
surplus in the overall national supply of about 40%? And were the revenue
earnings from electricity generation put alongside those earned from
tourism? The way the maths were used is nothing short of amazing.
In defence of this odd decision, Pongpol Adireksarn, the deputy prime
minister at the time assigned to oversee the evaluation procedures, said the
cabinet decision represented ``an acceptable compromise to both local
fishermen and Egat'' (Bangkok Post, Sept 25).
Mr Pongpol, who has since been transferred to take up the Education
portfolio, is apparently a believer in a half-baked solutions to problems.
Is this what he wishes to bequeath to future generations?
The decision to open up the dam's gates for just four months a year reflects
a serious lack of understanding of the breeding, feeding and general
survival patterns of the fish that inhabit the Moon river. It is a
fragmented view of nature.
This is strange when we consider that the Ubon University researchers placed
great emphasis on the year-round cycle of fish ecology, and the local
villagers' way of life. ``Fish migration occurs throughout the year with
each group migrating based on different natural conditions,'' the research's
executive summary stated. Didn't the cabinet members and their staff have
the time even to read this summary?
The study team said it had limited capacity to ``quantify'' and thus compare
the multifarious ``costs'' (as opposed to ``benefits'') of having the dam block the flow of
the Moon river. The researchers could not measure the psychological trauma
and community disintegration caused by the blasting of rapids to make way
for the dam, the use of force to disperse protesters, the lure of cash to
incite opponents to the protesters, the continual indifference to the plight
of villagers, and so on. Nor could they measure the value of the Moon river
as a ``supermarket'', workplace, supplier of organic vegetables and herbal
drugs, recreational area, and a sort of ``temple'' ground for the local
people.
What the Ubon University researchers found, however, was more than enough.
Since the temporary opening of the dam's gates in June last year, 184
species of fish have returned. The average household income has climbed from
a pathetic 3,045 baht per year (in 2000) to 10,025 baht per year (in 2001).
The proportion of households whose income is under the poverty line shrank
from 54.6% (in 2000) to 30.3% (in 2001). Teachers report how their students
now have ``big-sized'' fish in their lunchboxes. There has been a sprouting
of small-scale, tourism-related businesses where a number of rapids have
emerged. And there has been a resumption of communal traditions to clean up
the fish breeding grounds and the exchange of fishing gear.
Such topics are deserving of further inquiry _ but this would need the
uninterrupted opening of the dam's gates. Fish expert Tyson Roberts once
said that the one good thing stemming from the Pak Moon dam was that it
should prompt a halt to the building of all similar developments along the
length of the nearby Mekong river. In this way, the dam could offer some
return on the seven billion baht it has cost to build and run. So far.
There is a saying in Thai describing wasteful enterprises: Tam namprik lalai
maenam (literally, to pour spicy sauce into a river). In the case of the
Ubon University research, the 10 million-odd baht it
cost was simply wasted. How many more studies, reviews, evaluations,
reassessments _ you name it _ can the Moon tolerate before it exhausts its
ability to provide a living for researchers _ and fish? |
|
