Killing the mighty Mekong

The Mekong River, the lifeblood of millions living in the riparian states of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and China, has in recent years been threatened by the construction of dams. China has already built four dams and Laos has just become the first of the Lower Mekong nations to push ahead with its own dam project. Tom Fawthrop discusses the threat.

THE untamed roaring currents of the mighty Mekong have long enchanted travellers, inspired explorers and sustained some 65 million inhabitants living off the world's largest freshwater fisheries.

From its source in the snow-capped mountains of Tibet the Mekong flows 1880 kilometres through China and the heart of South-East Asia, to the fertile delta in Vietnam.

Souvanna Thamavone,1 an environmental researcher in Vientiane, Laos, explained in an interview, 'For the people here born on the Mekong, the river is like their blood - the principle of life. If the Mekong is blocked from upstream to downstream [by dams] it will be a shame.'

Further up the Mekong in Chiang Khong, northern Thailand, Nita Roykaew, a teacher and activist with the international Save the Mekong campaign, expounds a similar reverence for this majestic river. 'The Mekong is very special for the people. The community understand what is important for your life: water, forest, soil and culture.'

A community organiser who has always lived by the banks of this river, Nita argues, 'Many governments only think about the economy. [They think] nothing for nature, for culture, they just think money. From dams it is easy to make money.'

Dam threat

Now the mighty Mekong, the river with the second richest biodiversity in the world that has sustained countless generations of farmers and fishing communities, is under dire threat from investment in the rapid expansion of hydropower dams.

China has already built four dams on the Lancang (the Chinese stretch of the Mekong). The colossal Xiaowan Dam, the tallest high-arch dam in the world at  292 metres high, was completed in August. It is only a few feet less than the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris. 

Four more in China and 11 dams approved by government planners in Laos and Cambodia have triggered a major controversy.  

The Mekong, with its gigantic catfish which can grow up to 300kg and its colony of endangered Irrawaddy dolphins, its swirling currents and its majestic landscapes which are a growing mecca for ecotourism, could be on the cusp of irreversible changes to its ecosystem.

Dr Philip Hirsch, director of the Mekong Research Centre at the University of Sydney in Australia, is deeply concerned about the future. 'The two dams Xiaowan and Nuozhadu (the next Chinese dam to be built) will impact on the flow regime of the entire system all the way down to the delta in Vietnam.'

However, the authorities in Laos also want dams, and have put their faith in hydropower as a formula to lift itself out of chronic poverty, by selling power to its energy-hungry neighbours Thailand and Vietnam.

They have just become the first of the Lower Mekong nations to push ahead with a dam project on the Mekong at Xayaburi, based on selling electricity to neighbouring Thailand.

In accordance with international agreements among the four member nations of the Mekong River Commission (MRC), viz., Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, the Laotian government has formally  notified the MRC in September. This sets in motion a six-month consultation process with Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, who are entitled to raise objections.

Gloomy future

Dams reduce sediment and silt which carry essential nutrients for fish. Taming the swirling waters of nature and harnessing one of the world's great rivers to satisfy the thirst for energy would, Hirsch predicts, lead to a gloomy future: 'This cascade of dams will transform the Mekong, reducing the untamed waters to a series of still reservoirs and stagnant pools.'

The foreign investors, technocrats and Lao authorities all insist that their designs will bring more development to this poor landlocked nation, but many Laotian villagers remain sceptical. Souvanna Thamavone reports that the local people say, 'Development of dams brings brightness in the eyes, but darkness in the heart.'

It has triggered alarm bells among environmental scientists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and Mekong communities, about a headlong rush into a dam-building spree before the environmental impacts have been fully understood.

Juha Sarkkala, a Mekong specialist from the Helsinki Institute of the Environment, noted with grave concern, 'There is a very fast pace of hydropower development, passionately fast. We need a timeout. We need a moratorium on dams to consider a different strategy of development.'

The Thai NGO forum covering 24,000 people in riverine communities in Northern Thailand has called on the Thai prime minister to cancel commitments by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) to purchase electricity from the Xayaburi dam.

A warning has also been issued by the environmental NGO WWF that if the Xayaburi dam is built, it would almost certainly wipe out the endangered giant catfish. A further 41 species of fish face extinction. Downstream in Southern Laos and Cambodia, a colony of Irrawaddy dolphins would stand little chance of survival.

A  Thai parliamentary committee chaired by Kraisak Choonhavan MP is studying the impact of dams on the Mekong. The former senator and deputy leader of the ruling Democrat Party commented, 'The effect of the  Xayaburi Dam  will be devastating on all the countries - Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.'

China is not a member of the Mekong River Commission and its framework of international cooperation. Its unilateral dam programme has been widely criticised.

But in the case of the Xayaburi dam, Laos is a member of the MRC. Xayaburi thus becomes the first test case for treating a Mekong dam project as an international issue. The MRC six-month consultation process comes into effect between the four MRC member nations, on whether the dam should be allowed to go ahead or not. If the other members, e.g., Thailand and Vietnam, express serious objections, then the dam will probably not go ahead. Laos is unlikely to proceed unless they are sure that Thailand will buy the electricity.

Civil society and the media in both Thailand and Vietnam are becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to dams. Their role inprovidinginformation and support tothemore enlightened parliamentarians in both countries may be criticalin convincing the two prime ministers on the need for adam-building moratorium.

Many of the proposed downstream dams will block fish migration, especially the Don Sahong with its site near the spectacular Khone Waterfall, sitting astride the only passable channel for fish swimming up from Cambodia and Vietnam.

For Cambodians, who depend on freshwater fisheries for 81% of their protein intake, dams that block fish migration could be a disaster for both food security and nutrition. Professor So Nam from the Institute of Fisheries in Phnom Penh explained, 'People totally depend on fish. We have one  of the highest rates of fish consumption in the world. Every year Cambodian people catch about half a million tons of fish. It provides more than six million people with employment.'

Gordon Congdon, WWF's representative in Kratie, Cambodia, argues that 'to replace the main protein diet of fish for an estimated 65 million people could involve fantastic costs, if governments were forced to import additional meat' to compensate for the loss of fish.

Many NGOs and scientists in Vietnam have also spoken out against more dams. Trinh Le Nguyen, the Executive Director of the NGO People and Nature Reconciliation based in Hanoi, says, 'For Vietnam, the existing and proposed dams on the mainstream and tributaries of the Mekong River certainly pose tremendous threats to20 million people living in the delta.'

A critical decision for the future of the Mekong

The Mekong River Commission views dam development in terms of balancing opportunities against risks. The final Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) report of independent consultants to the MRC has made clear the enormity of risks in going ahead with more dams.

Among four options confronting MRC member states,2 the SEA consultants have recommended that decisions on mainstream dams should be deferred for a period of up to 10 years, with reviews made every three years.

However, the Chairman of the MRC secretariat has declined to endorse the consultants' report, and will merely present their findings to the member states.

If the Xayaburi dam proposal is approved and implemented, Vietnam's Trinh Le Nguyen concluded, 'we're afraid that this will be also a nod for many other mainstream dam projects to follow. And that is a dangerous movement. At the end of the day, "no dam" is the best option for all countries - not only for Vietnam'.

The decision on the Xayaburi dam could set the Mekong's fate for generations to come. Will its great resources be solely channelled into power generation, or will decision-makers count the potential costs before irreversible damage is done?

Hirsch insists that this all-important issue 'should only be decided on the best possible evidence. Let's hold off for at least 10 years. At least 10 years.'                                              

Tom Fawthrop is a journalist and filmmaker who has been based in South-East Asia for 30 years. He is the director of the documentary Where Have All the Fish Gone?:Killing the Mekong Dam by Dam (Eureka Films).

Endnotes

1.   This is not her real name but a pen-name.

2.   The SEA report presented four strategic options for mainstream hydropower development:

      1)               Cease all dam development

      2)   Defer decision on all mainstream dams for a set period

      3)   Selective approval of dam projects

      4)  Market-driven development and allow all dams.

      The SEA consultants have gone for option 2 with a strong recommendation that decisions on mainstream dams should be deferred for a period of up to 10 years, with reviews made every three years.

*Third World Resurgence No. 244, December 2010, pp 2-3