Shaking up modern myths in the Mekong
Do Chinese dams upstream cause decreased water levels in the Lower Mekong River?
The Nation March 13, 2008
by Rajesh Daniel
http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/03/13/national/national_30068006.php
Why are ecological paradigms that integrate terrestrial and aquatic processes not used in environmental impact assessments (EIAs)? Did traditional Khmer societies in Angkor live in harmony with their environment? Are fish catches declining in the Mekong Basin?
While research and scientific understanding of the Mekong River Basin continues to grow, much misunderstanding arises from flawed scientific practices, creating the so-called modern myths of the Mekong.
These myths are not cosmic world views or sacred legends like Naga the water serpent or the rain god Taen. They are packages of views and practices that are used for a rough and ready understanding of the Mekong region's complexities that often distort or over-simplify complex ecological and political processes.
These end up serving political purposes or justifying policy decisions that affect local livelihoods.
They may re-imagine an earlier historical past or culture as having lived in harmony with nature.
They can favour traditional ways of assessing and studying ecological processes while ignoring new ecological paradigms that could help better understand ecosystems, leading decision-makers to believe that they are adequately informed.
Critically questioning and unpacking these beliefs and practices scientifically, using diverse sources of information, is an important effort taken up by the recently published "Modern Myths of the Mekong".
Bringing together scholars, scientists and social activists to present the latest research in a highly readable volume, the book focuses on a wide range of issues including contemporary EIA practice, gender mainstreaming in community fisheries, causes of river-bank erosion, perceptions of declines in Mekong fish catch, upstream and downstream tensions around dams, population and development questions, and viability of community resource-use organisations.
For instance, the chapter showing how present-day EIAs are flawed is instructive in the light of the surge in infrastructure plans for the region.
The traditional EIA approach for large projects in the Mekong is to assess direct and indirect impacts on discrete components of the environment such as air quality, surface and groundwater, soils, vegetation and wildlife. But they fail to assess integrative, cross-sector processes such as the "flood pulse".
The flood pulse ecosystem is a lateral exchange of water, nutrients and organisms within the "flood pulse" or succession of periodic flooding or drought that determines ecosystem productivity of the rivers and lakes - a well-known example is the Tonle Sap Lake - in the Mekong region.
As an example, the assessments for the Nam Theun 2 dam in Laos PDR, that claim to be one of the most comprehensive assessments of the impact of any project on the Mekong basin, studied downstream impacts and reported a dry season water level rise of 2,870 centimetres at Chaktomuk, the junction of the Mekong and the Tonle Sap Rivers.
It then concluded minimal impacts based on the "ill-informed belief that fisheries are favoured by the high wet-season water levels".
However, a rise in dry season water levels at the Tonle Sap-Mekong junction will lead to a rise in the permanent water level of the Tonle Sap Lake, which would result in a massive die-off of terrestrial vegetation in the new permanently aquatic area. This would seriously affect ecosystem productivity and the resource-based livelihoods of people.
In a region that is rapidly going through development changes, while science and knowledge as well as environmental governance struggle to keep up, the book is a valuable effort to keep the practice of science and natural resources governance in the region honest and democratic.
Rajesh Daniel is part of the Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University.
Rajesh Daniel
Special to The Nation
|
