Don Sahong dam?
DOMINION POST MAGAZINE NEW ZEALAND section published on 6/7/2007
A Malaysian corporation wants to dam a channel on the Mekong River to
generate electricity, despite overwhelming evidence that it's a very
bad idea. Tom Fawthrop reports.
KNOWN for its picturesque waterfalls, tranquil waterways and a colony
of the endangered Irrawaddy dolphins, the pristine beauty of the
Mekong flowing through the Siphandon (Four Thousand Islands) district
in southern Laos is the ideal eco-tourism destination.
Hardly surprising then that a proposal to build of a 240-megawatt
hydroelectric dam only a few kilometres upstream from the famed Khone
Prapheng waterfall, has brought protests and letters of concern from
environmental organisations and international scientists.
It is not only endangered species _ the Irrawaddy dolphin and the
giant catfish _ that would likely be driven to extinction by a dam
built across a channel of the Mekong; the livelihoods of millions of
people living along the river banks and far beyond, dependent on the
rich fisheries, would also be at risk, with southern Laos facing a
potential food crisis.
In March 2006, the Laotian Government signed an agreement with Mega
First Corporation Malaysia to do a feasibility study to build the Don
Sahong dam across the Mekong's Hou Sahong channel, bordering Cambodia
and only a few kilometres from the waterfall. Landlocked Laos is one
of the least developed countries in the region, and authorities have
been eager to harness one of their few natural resources, an abundance
of mountains and surging rivers.
One fisheries expert at the Mekong River Commission (MRC), who prefers
not to be named, concluded: "This project does not make any sense.
Only the Malaysian company stands to gain. On the Laos side, it is all
losses and they will be astronomical losses."
A 2007 World Fish Centre report says that wild capture fisheries in
Laos amount to 64,600 tonnes _ 78 per cent of the country's total fish
production. Research estimates the direct value in the domestic
economy at between US$66 million and US$100 million a year,
contributing an estimate 6 to 8 per cent to total gdp.
Experts at the MRC and other specialists in fisheries, say that if
the dam is built it will block the only major channel of fish
migration between Cambodia and Laos , causing havoc to the normal
breeding cycles and the survival of more than 200 species. All other
routes are blocked by waterfalls, so the only way for the fish to
migrate from the Cambodian stretch of the Mekong is the crucial
passageway through the Hou Sahong channel, selected by the Malaysian
power corporation Mega First as the proposed dam site.
In May, the University of Sydney School of Geosciences issued an open
letter, criticising the dam, from "scientists concerned for the
sustainable development of the Mekong River", and signed by 34
scientists. Addressed to governmental and international agencies
responsible for the managing and development of the Mekong, it said:
"We are especially concerned that the dam would block fish from
migrating between Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, and that
ultimately it would have a hugely negative impact on fisheries-based
livelihoods in all four countries. Even more to the point: the
location of this proposed dam is probably the worst possible place to
site a 240MW project since it is the point of maximum concentration of
fish migration in the river that supports the world's largest
freshwater fishery."
There are already seven hydroelectric dams in Laos and 11 more dam
projects are planned. The massive Nam Theun 2 project, with a capacity
of 1088MW, now under construction, will supply much of the growing
energy needs of Thailand. Others will supply Cambodia and Vietnam.
MRC specialists question the economic viability of the project as well
as the environmental costs, and 28 non- government organisations,
mainly based in Thailand and Cambodia, also expressed their concern by
letter in late May. Inside Laos, international NGOs are equally
appalled by the project, but are unable to publicly voice opposition
within the one-party state.
The dam project has been promoted on the Laos side by Khamtay
Siphandon, an 83-year-old former guerrilla leader and ex-president who
took his name from the district in Champasak province where he was
born. But it has incurred the wrath not only of green campaigners, but
of some within the government's own ranks.
Many middle-ranking government officials would like to see the
Siphandon zone nominated for protection under the international
convention for the conservation of wetlands areas of special
biodiversity.
The Tourism Ministry, which recently issued an excellent booklet, Stay
another day in Laos , promoting sustainable tourism and ecological
conservation, is against a dam that would effectively undermine the
country's huge potential for eco- tourism in Champasak province.
Another contradiction in Laos Government policy is clear from the
signing of an agreement with the neighbouring Stung Treng province in
2006. It agreed that Laos and Cambodia would work together on both
sides of the Mekong for the protection of water resources, waste
management, dolphin conservation and sustainable tourism. Yet building
a dam in the area makes a nonsense of any commitment to work with
Cambodia on dolphin conservation.
A strong advocate of eco-tourism as the way forward for Laos, is
Luesak Soumpholphakdy, from the SalaLao hotel group, which has a
string of beautifully renovated, old traditional houses converted into
hotels. He says: "I worried about the fish and the dam and I don't
want to see a huge golf course resort discharging its chemical wastes
into the Mekong" _ something he fears is part of the rationale for
building a dam.
Though the Malaysian company has suggested the dam will bring
electricity for the first time to the idyllic unspoilt islands, some
locals say the existing power station at Ban Hat already has the
capacity to supply them.
A Mega First executive has said the dam will only have a "low
environmental impact". Mega First wants to push for a "fish pass" to
deal with the fish migration problem, but specialists dismiss this as
a non- starter, given the huge tonnage of fish that pass through the
Don Sahong channel. Local fishermen say that about 1000 kilograms of
fish a day are caught from the district and sold to markets in the
city of Pakse and in Thailand.
The stakes are high not only for Laos. The total fish catch in the
Lower Mekong basin, which includes Thailand and Cambodia, is valued at
US$2 billion a year, five times more than reservoir fisheries and
aquaculture production combined.
Many conservationists are hoping that the MRC, which has a mandate to
protect the Mekong, will finally take some action. It has long been a
toothless political body, contenting itself with scientific research
and studies about the Mekong, but seldom taking any practical
initiative to enhance the sustainability of Southeast Asia's most
important river.
However, if neighbouring countries _ Cambodia or Thailand _ formally
lodge an objection to the dam , the official Laos Government
delegation would be obliged to answer their anxieties, putting
pressure on the government.
Nothing has been built yet. The final Environmental Impact Assessment
report, commissioned by Mega First, has yet to be released, but
scientific evidence against the dam appears overwhelming.
Now it depends on an international outcry to force Laos' leaders to
pay attention to the costs of a dam- building frenzy.
|
