From dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Wed Sep 17 16:22:10 1997 Received: from [[UNIX: localhost]] ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA22562 for dam-l-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:20:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca: majordom set sender to owner-dam-l using -f Received: (from dianne@localhost) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA22546 for dam-l@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:19:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Dianne Murray Message-Id: <199709172019.QAA22546@lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> Subject: dam-l fwd: Nation editorial on Bakun and NT2 To: dam-l@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (dam impacts discussion list) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:19:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-dam-l@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dam-l@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Status: O Forwarded from Grainne Ryder at Probe International Forwarded message: >From grainne@nextcity.com Wed Sep 17 15:34:06 1997 Subject: [Fwd: THE NATION editorial on Bakun and NT2] Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:37:02 +1000 From: aviva@irn.org (Aviva Imhof) Sender: owner-irn-mekong@igc.org Subject: THE NATION editorial on Bakun and NT2 To: irn-mekong@igc.org >The Nation (Bangkok) >Editorial >Saturday, September 13, 1997 > > >Southeast Asia's biggest dams will have to go > >When 15 leaders of the 9,500 indigenous communities affected by Malaysia's >Bakun Dam received their compensation last month, they sent the cheques back >to the government. One said he received a token Bt3.3, which made the cost >of issuing the cheque higher than the compensated amount. No wonder >opposition to Southeast Asia's largest dam project continues despite the >fact work has already begun. > >Last week, the anti-dam advocates got what they wanted. > >In a dramatic reversal, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said the dam would >be "indefinitely delayed". That meant the project was as good as dead, for >now. Mahathir's backflip came not because of a new-found concern for the >plight of the indigenous people who will see a pool big enough to sink >Singapore in their ancestral home, but rather because the ringgit and stock >market took a severe beating from investors who are wary of his grandiose >projects. > >Also scrapped are the ambitious "floating" airport off the northern coast, >the three-kilometer-long Linear City which snakes above the Klang River -- >dubbed the world's longest building -- and a highway which cuts through the >ecologically sensitive mountainous region in the heart of the peninsular. >All of this is good news for the environment. > >It is not good news for the indigenous people though. Their relocation will >go ahead regardless. In an attempt to put a brave front, the government >argued that Bakun's woes will not affected future energy supplies. There are >alternatives. But that begs an important question. Why Bakun if it is not >necessary? The answer could lend support to the dark suggestion that Bakun >was a sick excuse to log the rainforests and convert them into palm oil >plantations. > >With Bakun effectively shelved, all eyes are on what is now the biggest dam >in Southeast Asia -- Nam Theun 2 (NT2) in Laos. Planners hope that NT2 will >catapult this poor and landlocked nation into the 21st century. But as with >Bakun, the recent economic hiccup in Southeast Asia has also dealt a serious >blow to Laos' ambition. Economically hobbled Thailand -- the main importer >of electricity from NT2 -- is now less able and willing. > >That spells trouble for NT2. Even without the economic crisis, NT2 will pose >problems for Laos. After all, big dams involved big risks. And big debts >too. NT2 is expected to incur a debt of almost four times that of Laos' >national budget. And with Thailand on a belt tightening regime, it is >clearly suicidal for Laos to press ahead with NT2. What's more, this is only >one of the 20 dams planned for the country. > >The future of NT2 now lies with the World Bank. Laos needs the bank to give >it a "risk guarantee" before it can raise US$1.5 billion from the private >sector. The guarantee means that while the dam is funded privately, the bank >will assume the risks of Laos negating its contractual agreements. This >would be the first time that the World Bank would provide such a guarantee, >in the hope it would spur private investments in poor economies. > >The World Bank has made major blunders with big dams before. Recently, the >bank was forced to pull out from the Narmada Dam in India and Arun III Dam >in Nepal. This time, the bank vows to do this right. But if right is what >the bank wants to do with NT2, surely it is to withdraw support for the >project. > >Over the past few decades, the West has been making a hard sell on two major >electricity generation technologies to power hungry T hird World countries -- >nuclear and hydro. As harnesses of power, both have evoked great awe and >admiration as human technological triumph over nature. In addition, such >billion-dollar projects also promise great wealth to the political elites -- >from lucrative contracts to graft. > >While nuclear power has created widespread fear of radiation leaks, >hydro-power enjoys the reputation of being a cheap, clean and renewable >energy. That opinion, however, is now being seriously challenged. Big dams, >like nuclear power plants, have the potential to do great damage to the >ecosystem, culture and livelihood of the indigenous peoples they displace. > >The sooner that the World Bank and the political elites in Third World >countries realise this, the better. >