On April 5, 1995, four lower Mekong countries Laos PDR, Thailand, Cambodia
and Vietnam signed the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development
of the Mekong and The Mekong River Commission (MRC) was born. This is an international
treaty with a noble mission:
“To protect the environment, natural resources, aquatic life and conditions, and ecological balance of the Mekong River Basin from pollution or other harmful effects resulting from any development plans and uses of water and related resources in the Basin.” [Article 3]
The Agreement also outlines the member states' duty to notify, consult and enter in a specific agreement with the others BEFORE any project using Mekong water can proceed, the ONLY exception being intra-basin projects that use river water in rain season. The procedure is known as the PNCPA process. [Article 5]
Eleven hydropower projects are being proposed on the Lower Mekong by Laos and Cambodia. Such a rush of exploitation along the entire stretch of the river is a serious threat to the essential objectives of the Agreement. The MRC commissioned the ICEM, an Australian consulting firm to conduct the Strategic Environmental Assessment for these projects. ICEM predicted severe harmful impacts to the environment, economy, livelihood and food security of millions of people. ICEM recommended that the MRC countries postpone the projects and conduct further study, especially on the trans-boundary impacts on Cambodia and Vietnam.
Laos however unilaterally decided to build the Xayaburi dam despite strong objection from regional governments as well as 28 regional and international NGO’s. Laos further plans to build the Don Sahong project, which is situated in one of the key channels in the Khone Falls region. The dam is on the mainstream channel and would utilize mainstream water all year round. Yet, Laos and the contractor insist on only notifying other countries and refuse to consult and enter agreement prior to proceeding with the project. If Laos gets away with this blatant violation of the Agreement, other countries would follow suit, racing on this unsustainable course and building 9 other dams. This dam building madness would destroy the river's ecological balance and the livelihood of millions riparians for good.
AECOM - The Dam Consultant’s Argument
On May 25, 2007, at the University of Sydney, 34 academic scientists signed an open letter to express their concern about the Don Sahong project. They represent the most informed opinion of the scientific community against this project. Yet Dr. Steve Hawkins, the AECOM consultant simply dismissed their concern as a myth, without citing any authoritative source to back up his stand.
Theo Vientiane Times reported that at a meeting in November, 2103 at Champassak
“Mega First Corp. Berhad hydropower engineer, Mr. Graeme Boyd, cited four reasons why the project should not be considered a mainstream dam:
The 1995 Agreement is a formal international treaty, and MFCB should not be allowed to write its own rules or add exceptions that are not permitted by the Treaty. Despite Mr. Boyd's baseless argument, the MRC's Chief Executive Officer Hans Guttman seemed to have bought it and misled the public with his own lack of confidence in the Agreement he was supposed to safeguard. According to The Vientiane Times Mr. Guttman stated:
"the Mekong Agreement did not go into great detail on what is and what isn't a mainstream project... just because the dam was located in a part of the Mekong River did not mean it was a mainstream project." , "You can't say they have breached the agreement… we don't have that kind of details."
The attitude and response of the MRC CEO is simply unacceptable. He did not make any effort to mitigate the looming conflict but actually worsened it, by encouraging the Laos government to think the Agreement has a loophole and the dam builder to continue their defiance. He has irreversibly damaged his own credibility as MRC CEO and that of the MRC itself. Mr. Guttman should do the honorable thing and resign.
Appendix
http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/regionaldocs/mekong.html
Article 5. Reasonable and Equitable Utilization
To utilize the waters of the Mekong River system in a reasonable and equitable manner in their respective territories, pursuant to all relevant factors and circumstances, the Rules for Water Utilization and Inter- basin Diversion provided for under Article 26 and the provisions of A and B below:
A. On tributaries of the Mekong River, including TonLe Sap, intra-basin uses and inter-basin diversions shall be subject to notification to the Joint Committee.
B. On the mainstream of the Mekong River:
1. During the wet season:
“To protect the environment, natural resources, aquatic life and conditions, and ecological balance of the Mekong River Basin from pollution or other harmful effects resulting from any development plans and uses of water and related resources in the Basin.” [Article 3]
The Agreement also outlines the member states' duty to notify, consult and enter in a specific agreement with the others BEFORE any project using Mekong water can proceed, the ONLY exception being intra-basin projects that use river water in rain season. The procedure is known as the PNCPA process. [Article 5]
Eleven hydropower projects are being proposed on the Lower Mekong by Laos and Cambodia. Such a rush of exploitation along the entire stretch of the river is a serious threat to the essential objectives of the Agreement. The MRC commissioned the ICEM, an Australian consulting firm to conduct the Strategic Environmental Assessment for these projects. ICEM predicted severe harmful impacts to the environment, economy, livelihood and food security of millions of people. ICEM recommended that the MRC countries postpone the projects and conduct further study, especially on the trans-boundary impacts on Cambodia and Vietnam.
Laos however unilaterally decided to build the Xayaburi dam despite strong objection from regional governments as well as 28 regional and international NGO’s. Laos further plans to build the Don Sahong project, which is situated in one of the key channels in the Khone Falls region. The dam is on the mainstream channel and would utilize mainstream water all year round. Yet, Laos and the contractor insist on only notifying other countries and refuse to consult and enter agreement prior to proceeding with the project. If Laos gets away with this blatant violation of the Agreement, other countries would follow suit, racing on this unsustainable course and building 9 other dams. This dam building madness would destroy the river's ecological balance and the livelihood of millions riparians for good.
AECOM - The Dam Consultant’s Argument
On May 25, 2007, at the University of Sydney, 34 academic scientists signed an open letter to express their concern about the Don Sahong project. They represent the most informed opinion of the scientific community against this project. Yet Dr. Steve Hawkins, the AECOM consultant simply dismissed their concern as a myth, without citing any authoritative source to back up his stand.
Theo Vientiane Times reported that at a meeting in November, 2103 at Champassak
“Mega First Corp. Berhad hydropower engineer, Mr. Graeme Boyd, cited four reasons why the project should not be considered a mainstream dam:
- "First and foremost that it would not block the Mekong across its full width, instead stretching across one of many channels."
- "The fact is that Hou Sahong is only one of many channels of the Mekong River. It only takes about 15 per cent of the flow of the Mekong, while a mainstream dam takes 100 per cent of the flow,"
- "Really, the Don Sahong project cannot be considered as a mainstream dam because it does not span the whole of the Mekong River."
- "Boyd said just 8 per cent of the river's sediment load would pass through the dam, as opposed to 100 per cent in a mainstream dam."
The 1995 Agreement is a formal international treaty, and MFCB should not be allowed to write its own rules or add exceptions that are not permitted by the Treaty. Despite Mr. Boyd's baseless argument, the MRC's Chief Executive Officer Hans Guttman seemed to have bought it and misled the public with his own lack of confidence in the Agreement he was supposed to safeguard. According to The Vientiane Times Mr. Guttman stated:
"the Mekong Agreement did not go into great detail on what is and what isn't a mainstream project... just because the dam was located in a part of the Mekong River did not mean it was a mainstream project." , "You can't say they have breached the agreement… we don't have that kind of details."
The attitude and response of the MRC CEO is simply unacceptable. He did not make any effort to mitigate the looming conflict but actually worsened it, by encouraging the Laos government to think the Agreement has a loophole and the dam builder to continue their defiance. He has irreversibly damaged his own credibility as MRC CEO and that of the MRC itself. Mr. Guttman should do the honorable thing and resign.
Appendix
http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/regionaldocs/mekong.html
Article 5. Reasonable and Equitable Utilization
To utilize the waters of the Mekong River system in a reasonable and equitable manner in their respective territories, pursuant to all relevant factors and circumstances, the Rules for Water Utilization and Inter- basin Diversion provided for under Article 26 and the provisions of A and B below:
A. On tributaries of the Mekong River, including TonLe Sap, intra-basin uses and inter-basin diversions shall be subject to notification to the Joint Committee.
B. On the mainstream of the Mekong River:
1. During the wet season:
- Intra-basin use shall be subject to notification to the Joint Committee.
- Inter-basin diversion shall be subject to prior consultation which aims at arriving at an agreement by the Joint Committee.
- Intra-basin use shall be subject to prior consultation which aims at arriving at an agreement by the Joint Committee.
- Any inter-basin diversion project shall be agreed upon by the Joint Committee through a specific agreement for each project prior to any proposed diversion. However, should there be a surplus quantity of water available in excess of the proposed uses of all parties in any dry season, verified and unanimously confirmed as such by the Joint Committee, an inter-basin diversion of the surplus could be made subject to prior consultation.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét