[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

DAM-L Downstream Impacts: Yunnan -> Lancang River Basin. Debate



----- Forwarded message from owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net -----
From: owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: LS: Debate on Downstream Impacts of Dams in Yunnan

The following message relates to a report funded by the ADB, entitled 
"Water Resources and Hydropower in the Lancang River Basin" that was 
prepared by Dr David Plinston and Professor He Daming, as part of a group 
of Sector Studies submitted to the Bank by a consultant (Landcare Research 
New Zealand Ltd.) in May 2000, in fulfillment of a contract under ADB TA 
3139:PRC: "Policies and Strategies for Sustainable Development of the 
Lancang River Basin". The report can be downloaded 
from  ftp://asia.anu.edu.au/pub/chap4.doc. The report talks about the 
enormous benefits that the proposed cascade of 8 dams on the Lancang in 
Yunnan will have for the Mekong countries downstream.

Mr David Blake wrote the following critique of the report, addressed to Mr. 
Ted Chapman at the Australian National University, who runs the Australian 
Mekong Research Network. Mr. Chapman's reply follows.

Aviva Imhof, IRN.


>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:25:57 +1000
>From: Greg Young <greg@orient.anu.edu.au>
>To: Australian Mekong Research Network <Mekong@anu.edu.au>
>Subject: MEKONG: Comments on the Plinston-He Daming report
>Sender: owner-Mekong@anu.edu.au
>
>
>From: Ted Chapman <Ted.Chapman@anu.edu.au>
>About:  Comments on the Plinston-He Daming report
>
>IMRN Item 7/2001
>
>IMRN Item 2/ 2001 (January 2001) referred to the substantial technical
>report on "Water Resources and Hydropower in the Lancang River Basin"
>released by the Asian Development Bank to the IMRN not long
>before. The report was prepared by Dr David Plinston and Professor He
>Daming, as part of a group of Sector Studies submitted to the Bank by
>a consultant (Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd.) in May 2000, in
>fulfillment of a contract under ADB TA 3139:PRC: "Policies and
>Strategies for Sustainable Development of the Lancang River Basin".
>Many IMRN subscribers will have accessed this report on Internet.
>
>To my knowledge, several formal papers and less formal presentations
>in February and March commented on issues raised in the Plinston-He
>Daming report. In this context, the exchange between Dr Blake
>(Imperial College at Wye, UK) and myself may be of interest; and other
>IMRN subscribers may wish to comment.  I would like also to draw
>attention (see below) to recent publications by Dr Gavan McCormack and
>Dr Peter Adamson, relating to dams and hydropower developments in the
>Mekong basin.
>
>
>--begin quoted Blake email
>
>From: "Blake, David" <david.blake@ic.ac.uk>
>
>Subject: Lancang/Mekong plans
>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:35:55 -0000
>
>Dear Ted,
>
>Concerning IMRN Item 02/2001, David Plinston and He Daming's "Water
>Resources and Hydropower in the Lancang River Basin", which I have
>recently read, I was interested by your comments.
>
>I agree with you that this report is indeed important and will be of
>interest to downstream countries, (given the dearth of information
>that has been given so far), but there my concurrence stops. I note
>that you, like the authors, start with the basic assumption that
>through greater hydrological control of the Mekong, the Chinese scheme
>is likely to have beneficial effects for Myanmar, Laos, Thailand,
>Cambodia and Vietnam: "They illustrate the prospective beneficial
>effects for riparian countries downstream of the three-dam combination
>(Manwan, Dachaoshan and Xiaowan) and the later construction of
>Nuozshadu, in markedly increasing dry season water flows in the
>upstream Mekong......and better regulating rainy season flows across
>the Yunnan - Laos border".
>
>The report itself, manages to offer a total of four potential (and
>spurious) benefits that might derive from the Lancang cascade past
>2010 or so, namely:
>
>* Greater dry season flow --- opportunity to develop irrigation
>downstream.
>
>* Better conditions for navigation
>
>* Could improve conditions in estuary when saline intrusion is a
>problem
>
>* Could reduce flood peaks slightly in rainy season.
>
>With the exception of greater potential for downstream erosion, no
>further risks, threats or disbenefits to downstream users resulting
>from the disrupted hydrological cycle are identified or
>considered. Any particular reason for this anomaly?
>
>Briefly and without going into detail, taking each of these points in
>turn I would suggest:
>
>* The present dry season flow in the Mekong is not a limiting factor
>to irrigation. In fact the river already irrigates thousands of
>hectares of dry season rice and vegetables through pumped irigation
>schemes.  Increasing flow and bringing the water level up a few metres
>will have a negligible impact in aiding irrigation (a minor saving in
>puimping costs only). However, it will drown out tens / hundreds of
>thousands of riverbank garden plots, causing hardship to
>millions. Furthermore, giant irrigation schemes like Thailand's
>Khong-Chi -Mun project are rapidly falling out of favour with the
>society due to the rapidly appearing massive negative environmental
>impacts already caused (esp. salinisation of productive land).  Hence,
>this is the only area with large potential to use the middle Mekong's
>waters and the costs would outweigh the benefits in the unlikely event
>of it being approved.
>
>* With the exception of some limited growth in tourism - related boat
>traffic, passenger and freight carried by boats in Laos is on the
>decline, as road networks are upgraded. More regulated flows or even
>blasting away rapids and rocks is unlikely to change this inevitable
>trend, so it would be hard to justify the damming of the Mekong on
>this point.
>
>* Do you have any data to demonstrate the extent of saline intrusion
>in Vietnam, how it has changed over time and what the estimated
>economic costs are? I am sure most delta dwelling people, given the
>choice, would prefer a degree of salinity in their water than a 50 %
>decrease in sediment levels, as indicated could be a possibility with
>4 or more dams in Yunnan constructed.
>
>* A reduction in floodpeaks, if they do indeed occur (though this has
>not been the case with Thai dams or others in the region), may have
>slight benefits to sparing life and property, but they will also cause
>severe disbenefits too for farmers who rely on annual flooding for
>fertility restoral. I refer, of course, to the capture of sediments
>and nutrients in the reservoir cascade, which will be unavailable for
>fulfilling its natural function on the river banks (cultivated for
>vegetables), floodplain and delta (cultivated for rice and numerous
>cash crops). Fisheries --- the lifeblood of local people --- will also
>be severely impacted causing great hardship.
>
>It is the latter point of sediment and nutrient removal that is likely
>to have the biggest potential impacts downstream and yet is largely
>glossed over in the report. While it makes the observation that soil
>erosion and sediment transfer in the lower Lancang appears to have
>markedly increased between 1980 - 1987, it mostly relates this data to
>considerations of sustainablity to the hydropower scheme itself,
>rather than the implication to downstream ecology, hydrology and
>livelihoods. The authors appear not to appreciate that the Mekong is a
>naturally highly turbid river and thus, the aquatic plant and animal
>community that inhabit it are finely adapted to such conditions. Any
>sudden alteration or perturbance to this natural state is bound to
>have profound effects on the ecology, productivity and biodiversity of
>the entire river system, just as has happened with countless rivers
>around the world (I refer you to the World Commission on Dams Report,
>"Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-making" for
>examples).
>
>This brings to me to my final point --- it would appear the report has
>been made in a virtual vacuum. While the authors themselves admit that
>they have not had full access to data and there is a lack of
>accurately documented data in general, from which to make informed
>decisions, it would seem that they have not attempted to relate the
>Mekong scheme and findings with other similar schemes elsewhere in the
>world. This narrow focus and failure to look at the wider
>environmental and social context of this unilateral scheme, flies in
>the face of all recommendations that came out of the WCD study
>process.
>
>Whilst Plinston and Daming say...."the lack of data transfer fosters
>suspicion that developments of the Lancang are to the disadvantrage of
>downstream riparians, when the opposite is closer to the truth", I
>would say: "The lack of broadbased analysis by multi-disciplinarians
>of the present situation, and absence of transparent process by the
>developers will do nothing to dispel suspicions that developments are
>to the detriments of downstream users, but will likely increase them".
>
>    I fervently trust it is not too late to open the Chinese plans to
>rational and informed debate to all, including the riparian states and
>peoples that will be most affected.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>David J.H. Blake
>
>c/o MCR, Imperial College at Wye,
>Wye, Ashford,
>Kent, TN25 5AH
>United Kingdom
>
>---end quoted Blake email
>
>---begin quoted Chapman reply
>
>Dear David,
>
>I most humbly apologize for the long and unanticipated delay since I
>sent you an interim reply at the end of February. I was then facing a
>massive overload of e-mails accumulated while I was overseas for 10
>days, and several formal commitments in Canberra early in March. I was
>also extremely tired after contributing at three conferences/workshops
>in Phnom Penh and Chiang Mai in quick succession, but assumed that I
>would make my usual swift recovery.
>
>Unfortunately, for me March proved to be largely a 'write-off'. This
>was totally unexpected. From early March I was under medical treatment
>and more recently physiotherapy, and I'm only now operating fairly
>effectively again.
>
>But now to turn to your thoughtful comments and questions about the
>Plinston-He Daming report on "Water Resources and Hydropower in the
>Lancang River Basin"...
>
>Addressing the four dot-points in your third paragraph, I disagree
>with your contention that the four potential benefits likely to accrue
>from the Mekong cascade are "spurious".
>
>*First, greater dry season flow will allow further expansion of pump
>irrigation (e.g. in the Se Banghiang river system in Laos and smaller
>left-bank and right-bank tributaries, without jeopardizing the
>existing dry season flow) . Moreover, more water in the Lower Mekong
>in the dry season will help to support the argument for diversion from
>the Mekong mainstream for urban uses in Northeast Thailand and
>Bangkok.  (This is an issue which we might expect to be addressed in
>the MRC's Water Utilization Programme, now in process).
>
>*Secondly, even without any blasting of the channel in Laos,
>navigation WILL be improved on the Mekong, notably upstream from
>Chiang Saen and close to the Laos-Yunnan border.  Here the depth of
>water over rapids is often less than 1.0 m in March-April-May. With up
>to 2.0 m over the rapids the Chinese steel-hull vessels built at
>Jinghong (draft 1.0- 1.4m) will have a 12 months sailing season
>downstream as far asPak Beng and Luang Prabang, in contrast to the
>shorter season (about 7 months) now.
>
>*Thirdly, and noting the comments after your third dot-point (page 2),
>while I personally don't have much data on the dry season advance of
>salinity in the Mekong delta, there are many relevant studies which
>several of our IMRN colleagues will be able to cite. The salinity
>problem has had special significance as rice-growing in the delta
>expanded in the 1980s and 1990s.
>
>* Fourthly, the likely slight reduction of flood-peaks. I agree with
>   your comments.
>
>Taking your question in the fourth paragraph on page 1, ending " Any
>particular reason for this anomaly?", we might also ask for further
>benefits, as well as more disbenefits to be identified. But the
>essential constraint on the authors, as I see it, is that their report
>was commissioned as one of a group of Sector Studies focused on the
>Lancang River Basin, NOT for the Mekong Basin as a whole.
>
>On page 2 you rightly, in my view, emphasize the importance of the
>Report's data and assessments concerning sediment transfer from the
>Middle and Lower Lancang to the Lower Mekong. Again, I think we need
>to recognize that the Plinston-He Daming report was focused on "Water
>Resources and Hydropower in the Lancang River Basin" as part ADB
>TA3139:PRC (see head of title page). The comprehensive study of the
>entire Mekong basin remains to be done.
>
>And on your final point (page 2) I of course agree with your view that
>the Plinston-He Daming report fails to look beyond Yunnan for
>comparisons with other hydropower schemes elsewhere in the world, or
>even elsewhere in China. But again its terms of reference no doubt
>limited it, as one sector study for ADB TA3139: PRC.
>
>Your concluding comment deserves wide consideration, because we have
>in this Report (despite its limitations) a substantial , succinct,
>thought-provoking and timely document which has immense implications
>for the present and near future of the Mekong basin. Certainly, others
>will develop from it, or help to place this Upper Mekong study in a
>wider geographic and developmental context.  Two recent studies
>already deserve special mention. I shall commend them to our IMRN
>colleagues in IMRN Item 8/2001. The first is Dr Gavan McCormack's
>paper "Water Margins: Competing Paradigms in China", published in
>'Critical Asian Studies' 33:1 (2001), 5-30. The second, which I think
>you know already. is Dr Peter Adamson's paper "The Potential Impacts
>of Hydropower Developments in Yunnan on the Hydrology of the Lower
>Mekong" which was expected to appear in 'Hydropower and Dam
>Construction' (March 2001).
>
>With best wishes,
>
>Ted
>
>---end quoted Chapman reply
>
>
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>MEKONG is a mailing list for circulating information on
>conferences, publications, and research about the
>Mekong Basin countries, and regional cooperation.
>
>
>* moderator: Greg Young <Greg.Young@anu.edu.au>
>
>* director: Ted Chapman <Ted.Chapman@anu.edu.au>
>             Faculty of Asian Studies
>             Australian National University
>
>* email your announcement to mekong@anu.edu.au
>
>* help at http://asia.anu.edu.au/mail/mailinglists.html
>
>* to unsubscribe, email listproc@anu.edu.au with no
>   subject line and the message: unsubscribe mekong
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@netvista.net
with no subject and the following text in the body of the message
"unsubscribe irn-mekong".

----- End of forwarded message from owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net -----