[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: Prawns at Pak Mun Dam: World Bank Lying Internationally
Dear friends,
As the Ten Year Anniversary of the People's struggle at the Pak Mun dam is
taking place, we know that the World Bank keeps distorting the facts about
the Pak Mun situation. The article below points to only one portion of
these lies.
We would like to thank those of you who have provided your strong support
to the people at Pak Mun in their struggles over these years.
Please keep fighting for the villagers' rights.
SEARIN
Prawn at Pak Mun Dam: World Bank Lying Internationally
Chainarong Sretthachau
Southeast Asia Rivers Network, SEARIN
December 10, 1999
While villagers at Pak Mun have attempted to bring information to the
general public about the severe impacts that the dam project has inflicted
on fish ecology, the fishery based economic systems, and the villagers’
livelihoods, claims by dam builders that Pak Mun have had no negative
impacts on neither fish nor livelihoods, have lost credibility. This is
particularly the case since villagers pointed to the blatant falsities
presented in EGAT’s advertising campaign "Plaa Raa [salt preserved fish] -
the jars will not be empty". The advertisement company hired by EGAT
reportedly constructed the images presented in the campaign by throwing
fish onto a small ladder constructed in the production studio. Since
brought to the public’s attention, the company has dissociated itself from
EGAT, so as to save its own reputation.
Last year, in 1998, the World Bank Operations Evaluation Department (OED)
released a report by the title "Recent Experience with Involuntary
Resettlement". The report demonstrates the successful mitigation of impacts
on the fishing communities at Pak Mun, and discusses in particular the
success of planting prawn in the Mun River as a substitute for the loss of
fish:
Whether or not fish levels have decreased, the DOF began aggressively
stocking the reservoir in 1995, at the rate of five million fish per year,
and that may increase. Furthermore, the DOF started stocking the reservoir
with shrimp in 1995, also at the rate of five million per year. Although
shrimping is even more difficult work, shrimp grow faster than fish in the
reservoir, and shrimping is a more remunerative activity than fishing. An
estimated 2,000 people are involved in shrimping, averaging $4 to $8 per
day. During the first year, 1995, the shrimp catch was 18 metric tons, and
it is expected to increase substantially. Enthusiasm for the shrimp program
was widespread, even among those who criticize everything about the dam.
(OED, p.12)
This article would like to confront the statements made about the prawn at
Pak Mun, that are indeed lies to people worldwide. This will be done by
comparing the data on prawn between the OED report with the data found from
other reports and sources of information about prawn at the Pak Mun:
"Report on the Economic and Social Changes due to Impacts Experienced by
Residents in the Pak Mun Dam Area", a report conducted on behalf of EGAT by
Khon Kaen University, August 1997; "Conclusion Report on the Amount and
Value of Prawn in Khong Jiam district and Mun river, Ubol Ratchathani
province", produced by the Department of Fishery; and data from interviews
with fishermen at Pak Mun, and with fish merchants and restaurant owners in
Phibun Mangsaharn district, collected by staff of Mekong Watch Japan,
September 30 - October 5, 1999.
We have found that the OED report, conducted under the leadership of
Professor Supachai, is correlates closely to the report produced for EGAT,
and for which the research team was indeed also directed by professor
Supachai. It appears that the OED report contains direct translations of
some of information found in the EGAT report, with the addition of some
further information. Regarding prawn, both reports show the success of the
prawn program at Pak Mun. From the information presented, it appears that
the Pak Mun villagers are now enjoying prawning, as is declared in the OED
report quoted above, section 5.11. At the same time, EGAT’s report states
that "although the villagers can catch less fish, in 1996 the villagers who
caught prawn for sale, did so at an average 74.07 kilograms per household
per year. Including all households, the average catch was 29.81 kg/year,
whereas in 1994 no one caught this kind of prawn" (pg 33-34, and 87)
However, there are a number of diverging points between the two reports.
For example, the OED report higher numbers than reality, both with regards
to the number of people enjoying the benefits of catching prawn, as well as
their income levels. OED states that 2000 people benefit from catching
prawn, while the EGAT report found that only 29 households (of a sample of
200) catch prawn. (Khon Kaen university, 1998, Appendix 5.) As such, we
must ask the question of how OED derived the number of 2,000 people.
Furthermore, when comparing the data between the OED report and the report
produced by the Department of Fishery, which is directly responsible for
the prawn program at Pak Mun, we find flaws in the OED report concerning
the income generated from catching prawn. . DOF states that, during the
three years from 1996 to 1998, the value of prawn caught at Pak Mun totaled
2,988,614 bath, 2,947, 532 bath, and 3,639,576 bath for year respective
year. As such, if we accept the number of 2000 people as the actual number
of prawn catchers, and also accept the data of DOF, with regards to the
value of the prawn caught, the OED report necessarily makes false claims,
in saying that villagers can generate $4 - $8 dollars per day from catching
prawn. Calculations using the value given by DOF demonstrates that each
villagers generated an average income of 4 baht per day, or US$ 0.11 - 0.13.
It is possible that the numbers of $4 - $8 , were drawn from EGAT’s report,
which states that Mr.Amporn Bunchuaylua generates an income from prawn
catching of 81,000 baht in the year that the data was collected. (EGAT
report, Appendix 5, table 1). In actual fact, Mr. Amporn is a village
headman, supported by EGAT in opposing the villagers who protest the dam.
Some villagers at Pak Mun say that, while the Khon Kaen university
collected their data for the report, Mr. Amporn bought up the prawn caught
by other villagers to claim that his success in catching prawn. Some
villagers also say that this tactic was employed every time that EGAT
brought media to the area for promotion of the Pak Mun project and the
prawn project.
Moreover, some of the 29 samples studied by the Khon Kaen university
report, argued that it would be impossible to generate that much income,
since they themselves hardly catch any prawn at all (as mentioned by, for
example, Mr Suphan Wangphol). They are angered by the Khon Kaen university
report, feeling that the information they provided was distorted, and they
also asked the World Bank to send a representative to examine whether they
indeed catch prawn or not, as is declared by the Khon Kaen report.
Catching prawn is not easy for villagers. They may be able to catch prawn
by diving, but there are few villagers who actually have adequate diving
equipment, as it is very expensive. Not including a boat or an oxygen pump,
the cost of equipment is around 8,000 baht, and with all the necessary
tools, the total cost comes to between 10,000 and 30,000 baht. In a survey
of 17 villages, only 62 villagers were found to own such equipment.
The villagers state that, after the dam construction, most of them use a
net to catch fish. If prawn also get caught in the net, however, it does
not mean that their occupation is that of prawning. In any case, it is
difficult to actually catch the prawn. For example, Mr. Sunthon Homsin, 52
years old, villager at Ban Ko Tai, Tambon Pho Sri, Phibun Mangsaharn
district, Ubol Ratchathani province, has caught only three prawn since the
year that DOF released the prawn into the river, although he was using both
a net and a fishing rod. Similarly, Ms. Samrit Wiangjan, 39 years old,
villager at Ban Hua Hew, Tambon Khong Jiam, Khong Jiam District, Ubol
Ratchathani province, caught only 200 grams prawn, at a worth of 80 baht.
At the same time, most villagers cannot catch any prawn. Mr. Tamdi
Phonthai, 63 years old, villager from Ban Saphue Tai, Tambon Pho Si, Phibun
Mangsaharn District, Ubol Ratchathani province, and Mr. Uthong Thongat, 54
years old, from Ban Pak Dom, has never caught any prawn.
Regarding OED report’s statement that in 1995 only, 18 tons of prawn were
caught, this is a doubtful number. This was the first year that DFO
released the prawn, and there is no data at DOF about how much prawn was
actually caught in that year. This data was only begun to be collected data
in 1996. If looking at the DOF data about how much prawn that was caught
each year, we see that it is less than 18 tons. Indeed, the maximum of
prawn caught was reported for 1996, at 12.689 tons. Moreover, the data
shows reduced amounts of prawn caught each year. In 1997, there were 11,
679 kilos and in the last year reported, only 10,656.9 kilos. The declining
numbers show that the OED report’s claim that "the expected number of prawn
to be caught will continuously increase" is contradictory to reality.
Besides, data about the amount of prawn and their value at Pak Mun as given
by DOF is argued by villagers and prawn merchants to be overestimated.
The owner of J.Jaluern Shop at Phibun Mangsaharn District, said that in
1996, he bought more than 100 kg of prawn per day. This amount was then
reduced every year. The following year, they bought only between 10-20
kilograms of prawn per day, and in this year, they bought only two prawns
over a period of five days (October 1 - 5). Another prawn merchant, at Ban
Tunglung, used to buy prawn at the price of 100 Baht per kilo from the
villagers and resell to merchants from Bangkok and Suphan Buri province at
the price of 150 baht per kilo, in the year of 1996. During the five days
between October 1 to 5, this year, he could not buy any prawn at all.
Villagers and prawn merchants were asked by DOF to collect data about the
amount s of fish they caught, by using a form for keeping track of their
catches. Although villagers confiremd on thes forms that they were unable
to catch prawn at Pak Mun, DOF continued to report that prawn was being
caught by villagers. Prawn merchants are raining the quesiton to DOF as to
where they gathered this data. Besides, DOF also said they released prawn
at Pak Mun continuously over time. In this year, they released both prawn
and fish on twelve occasions, in total a number of 2,570,500. The question
that naturally follows is: where has the prawn at Pak Mun gone?
First, according to data from prawn farmers, when releasing prawn into the
farm, there is only a 20 % survival rate among the prawn. But this is data
from a prawn farmer who has full farming equipment, such as oxygen
producing tools, prawn feed, and antibiotics, so as to heighten the
survival rate of the prawn. For releasing prawn into the reservoir,
however, where the environmental conditions for prawn survival are
unfavourable, the probabilility for survival is indeed lower.
Second, in 1995, when water was initally begun to be stored in the
reservoir, and which was also the first year of releasing prawn, the
villagers at Pak Mun did indeed catch a substantial amount of prawn
(however, not to the extent reported by the OED). It is possible that the
prawn that the DOF released in the area from above the dam to Ban Tunglung,
a distance of 10 km, could grow in the fresh swamp forest area that then
existed, as this environment could provide good habitat for the prawn as
well as plenty of small shells upon which the prawn could feed. However, in
the years that followed, the environment in the reservoir worsened for
prawn, not only in terms of water quality but also in that the trees that
previously served as a food source to the prawn were dying. As such, the
prawn would not be able to survive.
This explanation is also supported by a study on water quality recently
conducted by Mekong Watch Japan. A measurement tool called "KMnO4 COD Pack
Test", by Kyoritsu Chemical-check Lab, Corp was used for testing the
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) in the Pak Mun reservoir. For comparison, the
COD of drinking water is 0 ppm, while for rain water, COD measures 1-2 ppm.
If water contains some organic matter, the COD will be between 1 and 5 ppm.
For moderately polluted water, COD will be between 2 and 5 ppm while for
very polluted water, COD measures more than 10 ppm.
>From measurements made on Novemeber 22, 1999, it was found that water in
the Pak Mun reservoir, at the Saphoe Rapids, Phibun Mangsaharn District,
has a COD level of between 10 and 20 ppm. At Tunglung bridge, in the middle
area of the reservoir, COD measured more than 10 ppm. Above the dam, at a
midpoint in the reservoir, COD is between 10 and 20 ppm. At the fish
ladder, the COD measures 10 ppm.
200 meters below the dam, COD was found to be between 10 and 20 ppm. It was
found that the level of pollution decreased further away from the dam. For
example, at the Thana Rapids, COD is between 5 and 10 ppm, but at the mouth
of Mun river by the confluence with Mekong River, at Khong Jiam, COD read
only 5 ppm, which is the same level as that found in Mekong River.
The polluted water, as indicated by the measurements, leads to another
question directed to the DOF, EGAT and the World Bank, namely, what kind of
prawn would really be able to survive for villagers to catch in the Mun river?
This question should also be directed to the academics who wrote the report
about the prawn at Pak Mun. Your answer will not only bring a better
understanding about the matter to the villagers, but also confirm that you
indeed wrote honestly, and not under the commands of the dam builders.
In our Thai society, we need to carefully consider the situation of the
prawn at Pak Mun. We need to prevent DOF to release more prawn in the
reservoir, which is literally the the same as throwing money into the sea -
money which comes from Thailand’s tax payers. We must not let EGAT and the
World Bank use the prawn at Pak Mun as a means to give credit to dam
builders, as was the story of the Pak Mun fish ladder.
************************************************
Chainarong Sretthachau
Southeast Asia Rivers Network(SEARIN)
25/5 Moo 2 Soi Sukhapibarn 27
Changkhien-Jed Yod Road
Chang Phuek
Muang
Chiang Mai 50300
Thailand
Tel/Fax: (66) 53-221157
Email: searin@chmai.loxinfo.co.th