With the livelihoods of 60 million people on the line, science – not
guesswork – must prevail, writes WWF International Director General Jim Leape
With the livelihoods of 60
million people on the line, science – not guesswork – must prevail.
On November 7, the government of
Laos held a ground-breaking ceremony to launch construction of the Xayaburi
dam. If built, this massive dam would be the first dam on the lower Mekong
mainstream, and could well open the way for 10 more dams currently proposed. It
threatens economic development prospects and basic food security for 60 million
people, 80 percent of whom depend directly on the river for their food and
livelihoods.
The fish that migrate up and down
the free-flowing lower Mekong are the principal source of protein for those 60
million people, and are the basis for a fishing industry with an estimated
value as high as US$7.6 billion annually. And the river’s natural flooding
cycles feed agriculture that brings in another US$4.6 billion. So the stakes
are high.
The governments of Thailand,
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam have acknowledged the need for additional research
into the unique functioning of the lower Mekong. In December 2011, the Mekong
River Commission agreed to conduct further studies on the effects of the
Xayaburi dam and ten other proposed mainstream dams.
To date, no studies have been
conducted, leaving significant questions unanswered about how mainstream dams
will affect migratory fish populations and the flow of sediment that nourishes
farmland downstream.
These are not merely questions
for biologists and hydrologists. They are questions for ministers of
agriculture, health, and finance. They are questions for banks and donors,
including Australia, the European Union, and the U.S., which have invested an
estimated US$1 billion in development aid in Laos and downstream countries over
the past 25 years. Economic growth gained at the expense of food security is no
development victory.
The curious lack of opposition to
the Xayaburi dam at the recent Asia-Europe Meeting or the East Asia Summit
could be read as tacit support for the project. This would call into question
European and U.S. rhetoric about sustainable development. Support, whether
tacit or explicit, for a project this risky and blatantly shortsighted is
incompatible with an agenda that promotes food security, economic opportunity,
energy access, and a stable climate.
Indeed, the Xayaburi dam is a
crucial test case. Are recent discussions about the trade-offs required to
achieve food, water, and energy security just talk? Or are governments and
investors willing to go beyond buzzwords like “nexus thinking” where it truly
matters? The nations of the lower Mekong have an opportunity to turn concept
into reality by taking a balanced approach to meeting food, water, and energy
needs, while conserving the natural resources that underpin all of these.
As a regional leader, Thailand
also plays an important role. Thailand is slated to be the prime consumer of
the electricity produced, and at least four Thai banks have expressed their
interest in providing loans to the project, despite the acute environmental and
social costs, and the uncertainties surrounding the financial return of the
project. WWF calls on Thailand to act responsibly and cancel its power purchase
agreement until there is regional consensus on dams.
On complex issues of conservation
and poverty-reduction, “clearly right” answers are rare. This is one of the few
instances when all the governments and scientists have agreed: It’s too risky
to build a dam across the lower Mekong. There’s too much we don’t know, and the
stakes are too high.
If the project goes ahead, the
history of the lower Mekong will be divided into before and after Xayaburi.
This will set the precedent, making it harder to oppose the ten additional proposed
dams. How many times must we look back in hindsight before we understand the
magnitude and permanence of such decisions?
The groundbreaking ceremony at
Xayaburi might make the dam seem like a fait accompli. On the contrary, there
is still time to reconsider. There are options to develop hydropower along
Mekong tributaries – options that research shows would have far less impact on
migratory fish, and therefore food security and livelihoods. Let’s listen to
the science and chart a sustainable path for development along the lower
Mekong.
Source: WWF
No comments:
Post a Comment