1
MRC SEA OF HYDROPOWER ON THE MAINSTREAM MEKONG
ICEM - Interna,onal Centre for Environmental Management
Presentation overview 2
A.
Introduc,on to the Mekong River
B.
Introduc,on to the 12 mainstream hydropower projects
C.
Why conduct an SEA?
D.
Scope of the SEA
E.
SEA methodology
F.
The “big issues” & key findings
G.
Strategic op,ons, conclusions & recommenda,ons
H.
Lessons learned
3
A. The Mekong Introduc)on to the Mekong riverine environment
Overview of the hydroecological zones 4
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Lancang River Chiang Saen – Vien,ane Vien,ane – Pakse Pakse – Kra,e Kra,e – Phnom Penh Phnom Penh – South China Sea
MRC Ini,a,ve for sustainable hydropower & ICEM - Interna,onal Centre for Environmental Management
Zone 1 Upper Mekong Basin (UMB) 5
Zone 1 Upper Mekong Basin (UMB) 6
characteris0c
UMB contribu0on
Mekong average annual flow
16%
Mekong average annual sediment load
40-43%
River length
44%
fall
90%
Zone 2 Chiang Saen to Vientiane 7
Surveyors Camp at proposed Pak Beng site
Confluence with Nam, Ou River
Zone 3 Vientiane to Pakse 8
Zone 4 Pakse to Kratie 9
Zone 5: Kratie to Phnom Penh 10
Zone 6: Phnom Penh to South China Sea 11
MRC Ini,a,ve for sustainable hydropower & ICEM - Interna,onal Centre for Environmental Management
Change in the Mekong Basin 12 ¨
Over geologic ,me, the Mekong basin has undergone major change ¤ ¤
¨
Headwater capture of the Lancang River Forma,on of the Mekong Delta
Since then the Mekong Basin has reached a dynamic equilibrium with the climate and landscape
Which means: ¨
¨
¨
No drivers of change within the natural system Very consistent & predictable annual hydrograph Change to the hydrology & sediment regime is human induced
MRC Ini,a,ve for sustainable hydropower & ICEM - Interna,onal Centre for Environmental Management
Human drivers of change to the hydrograph 13
1.
2.
3.
Changes to the run off regime ¤ Land clearing & deforesta,on Change to surface water volumes ¤ Water abstrac,on for human use Change to basin storage capacity ¤ hydropower
• •
• • •
~17-20% of the Mekong basin has been cleared since the 1960s and increasing Impact on tributary and localised hydrology not yet on regional hydrology Applied irriga,on accounts for 5% of mean total volume of basin run off An order of magnitude lower than forest evapotranspira,on Domes,c & industrial use is another order of magnitude below this
• ...?
MRC Ini,a,ve for sustainable hydropower & ICEM - Interna,onal Centre for Environmental Management
14
B. Mainstream Mekong hydro Overview of the proposed Mekong mainstream projects
Where the SEA falls in the GMS planning hierarchy
15
GMS sector & ecnomic corridor plans MRC Basin Development Plan (BDP) MRC Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement
SEA in support of the
SEA initiated in support of PNPCA and the BDP the PNPCA process
processes
Bilateral transboundary project planning
National & sector development plans - eg Power Development Plans
Local project specific planning - eg power project concession process and EIA procedures
Hydropower on the Mekong River 16
VIET NAM
Why did LMB countries conduct the SEA? 17
¨
Regula,on of flows by Hydropower on the Lancang has made the Mekong hydrology beeer suited to mainstream hydropower
The projects No MAINSTREAM PROJECT 18
DEVELOPER China: Datang Interna,onal Power Genera,on IEE submiBed Vietnam: PETROVIETNAM Power Corpora,on Feasibility study
1
Pak Beng
2 3
Luang Prabang Xayaburi
4
Pak Lay
5
Xanakham
6
Pak Chom
Thailand/Laos: Joint feasibility study
7
Lat Sua
Thailand: Italian Thai Asia Corp. Holdings Pre-feasibility study submiBed
8
Ban Koum
Thailand: Charoen Energy & Waters Asia
9
Don Sahong
Malaysia: Mega First
Thailand: SEAN & Ch. Karnchang Public Feasibility study & full ESIA submiBed China: CEIEC & Sino-Hydro IEE submiBed China: Datang Interna,onal Power Genera,on
10 Thakho
Full EIA submiBed France: Compagnie Na,onale du Rhone and EDL IEE submiBed
11 Stung Treng
Vietnam
12 Sambor
China: Southern Power Grid Pre-feasibility study submiBed
Project footprints 19
MAINSTREAM DAM
Pak Beng Luang Prabang Xayaburi Pak Lay Sanakham Pakchom Ban Koum Lat Sua Don Sahong
Thakho diversion Stung Treng Sambor
Reservoir Reservoir area Length (km2) (km) 87 180 90 150 49 100 108 110 81 90 74 85 133 155 13
10
290 (ha)
5
n/a
0
211
45
620
90
55% of lower Mekong converted from river to reservoir lake
20
C. Why conduct the SEA?
Why did LMB countries conduct the SEA? 21
¨ ¨
Screening step – MRC has not protocols for SEA Mainstream hydropower is the most important strategic decision for the Mekong Basin since the 1960s because: ¤ It affect six countries ¤ Shared wealth of natural resources ¤ Influence on health & connec)vity of natural systems ¤ High dependency on natural resources for livelihoods ¤ Some of the fastest economic & energy growth rates in the world
The context for the SEA 22
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
The SEA is contribu,ng to a decision-making process rela,ng to 12 hydropower schemes proposed for the mainstream Mekong River These are sovereign decisions of Cambodia (2 proposals) and Lao PDR (10 proposals) Thailand and Vietnam hold the key to mainstream development as the market for the power produced There is a commitment under the MRC agreement to no,fy, consult and seek to reach agreement with neighbours There are many remaining gaps and uncertain,es in knowledge about the costs and benefits
SEA objectives 23
¨
help shape decisions and plans so that development is equitable and ecologically sustainable ¤
¨
To help iden,fy in clear terms the trade-offs involved in strategic op,ons ¤ ¤ ¤
¤
including to help avoid or minimise their nega,ve economic, social and environmental effects and improve benefits
What will be lost? What will be gained? Who will loose and who will gain?
ensure that leaders are well informed about the posi,ve and nega,ve effects of strategic op,ons – i.e. that they are aware of the consequences and risks of their decisions before they make them
This SEA… 24
¨ ¨
¨
¨ ¨ ¨
was commissioned by the Mekong River Commission (MRC); was coordinated through its Ini,a,ve for Sustainable Hydropower (ISH) and worked with all MRC programmes Involved consulta,ons with more than 60 government agencies & 40 NGOs Began in May 2009 and completed in Oct 2010 Team of 24 interna,onal & na,onal specialists Was conducted over 18 months for USD750,000
Two basic questions confronting leaders 25
1.
What needs to be done before decisions rela,ng to the mainstream projects can be made responsibly? – i.e. with assurance that: § § § §
2.
Benefits outweigh the costs, Benefits can be equitably distributed Most costs can be offset or compensated Condi,ons set for development can be enforced
What needs to be done once decisions are made? – i.e. to avoid or minimise the nega,ves and to enhance the posi,ves
Broad aim of the SEA 26
2 Decision-making Spheres
To provide a broader understanding of the risks and opportuni,es of proposed 12 MS dams
Integrated Basin Planning IWRM Sphere of decision making (1995 Agreement)
SEA Energy Power Sector / Industry Sphere where decisions on hydropower are
The SEA work helps bring together the two decision-making spheres IWRM & Power
taken
27
E. SEA methodology
Overview of the analysis… 28
100s of development Issues Government Line Agency Meetings
• meetings with 40 agencies in the LMB
1. SCOPING
National Scoping & Capacity Building Workshop & Civil Society Meetings • 4 National Scoping Workshops •3 Civil Society meeting •Thai Civil Society meeting to follow in November
2 Field Missions & Opinion from 17 experts
Issue 1
Without mainstream hydropower With mitigation
Issue 2
With mainstream hydropower
4. MITIGATION
8 THEMES (~30 - 40 KEY ISSUES)
•Luang Prabang, Xayabouly, Pak Lay, Sanakhan, Pak Chom
past present future 2. BASELINE ASSESSMENT
3. OPPORTUNITIES & RISKS ASSESSMENT
Trend analysis and scenarios 29
Trend analysis for past, current and future (2025-2030) ¨ Indicators for assessing change in key issues – drew from BDP indicator framework ¨ SEA adopted two BDP scenarios: ¨
¤ LMB 20 year plan without mainstream hydropower
dams ¤ LMB 20 year plan with mainstream hydropower ¨
Both include exis,ng and planned Yunnan and tributary dams
1. Themes and issues – focus of the SEA Themes addressed in the SEA
Specific issues of concern
30
Environment Social Economic
2. Past and future trends in key issues without the HP plan
4. Future trends with HP plan
Past trends and their drivers in key issues
Cumulative and synergistic effects of all trends with the HP plan and implications for critical strategic concerns
Hydrology, water quality, aquatic & terrestrial biodiversity, etc. Demography/migration, ethnic groups and their livelihoods, health, etc. Agriculture, fisheries, transport, mining, industry, tourism, etc.
3. Future trends in the key issues with the HP plan Likely future evolution Direct effects of various of these trends due to components of the HP related plans or plan on the expected planned major future trends (i.e. projects in the study building on the analysis area that will take of trends without HP place even if the HP plan) plan is not implemented
When data not available
Clear qualitative explanation of the trends and implications
When data available
§ § §
Graphs and maps
Implications of predicted future trends with the HP plan on the critical strategic concerns: integrity of ecosystems, economic benefits, social cohesion and equity in development of the mainstream Mekong
5. Conclusions and recommenda tions
§ §
Regional actions National actions Actions in the river basin (new planning process, institutional arrangements, monitoring) Provincial actions Project-specific action (suggestions for detailed project design
Steps in the SEA process 31
Incep,on and scoping Report
Scoping phase
May – June 2009
Baseline Assessment Report
Baseline phase June-Sep 2009
Opportuni,es & Risk Report
Opportuni0es & Risk phase Feb-May 2010
AME Report
Final Report
Avoidance enhancement & Mi0ga0on phase May-July 2010
Oct 2010
Na,onal Government consulta,ons Regional Government Consulta,ons Civil society Organiza,ons (CSO) Consulta,ons Developer consulta,ons ¨
Staged approach – analysis, consulta,on & repor,ng at each stage
SEA approach: scoping 32
Staged approach – analysis, documenta,on and consulta,on at each stage ¨ Scoping – strategic themes and issues iden,fied ¨
¤ What are the most important issues of concern to
sustainable development and use of the mainstream Mekong? ¤ How can those issues be categories and priori,zed – ie given strategic focus?
Scoping process 33
FEBRUARY-APRIL
BACKGROUND SCOPING
background context, national perspectives & stakeholder identification MAY-OCTOBER
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT & CSO WORKSHOPS Strategic issues, govt planning, targets and processes, opportunities for collaboration, sustainability objectives
GOVERNMENT LINE AGENCY MEETINGS Strategic issues, govt planning, targets and processes, partnerships OCT/NOV
SEA TEAM REVIEW & PRIORITISATION The key strategic themes & issues
SEA scope 34
Key SEA themes:
¨
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ¨ ¨
Power systems Economics Hydrology & sediment Terrestrial systems Aqua,c systems Fisheries Social systems Naviga,on Climate change
Baseline: 2000 – 2010 Future ,me-slice: 2010 - 2030
Integration of sustainability 35
SEA sustainability objec,ves defined through stakeholder workshops and review of government policies ¨ One or two sustainability objec,ves iden,fied for each strategic theme ¨ The impact and mi,ga,on ques,ons: ¨
¤ “what effect will the mainstream projects have on
achieving the sustainability objec)ves?” ¤ “What mi)ga)on measure can improve applica)on of the sustainability objec)ves?”
Identification sustainability objectives 36
SEA sustainability objectives (1) 37
¨
Hydrology and Sediment ¤
¨
Aqua0c ecosystems ¤
¨
Maintenance of aqua)c ecosystems for conserva)on of biodiversity, connec)vity and ecosystem services
Terrestrial and agriculture ¤ ¤
¨
Maintenance of natural paBerns of sediment transport and deposi)on in flood plains and the Delta
Maintenance of terrestrial ecosystems for conserva)on of biodiversity, connec)vity and ecosystem services Maintenance and enhancement of diversity and produc)vity of agricultural systems
Fisheries ¤
Maintenance and enhancement of diversity and produc)vity of fisheries resources
SEA sustainability objectives (2) 38
¨
Social ¤ ¤
¨
Economics ¤ ¤
¨
Ensuring equitable distribu)on of economic benefits including long term support to vulnerable effected groups and areas Ensuring that economic development follows the precau)onary principle – (in situa)ons of high uncertainty of impact take the cau)ous approach)
Energy ¤
¨
Ensuring the wellbeing of vulnerable and minority groups Maintaining a vital (living) cultural diversity (ways of living) and heritage of importance to riparian communi)es
Ensuring a secure and diverse energy supply from renewable resources without losses in sustainability of social and natural systems
Climate change ¤
Maintaining and improving op)ons and capaci)es to adapt to climate change
SEA approach: baseline assessment 39
Baseline – projected baseline and trend analysis 1. What have been past trends for each of the key issues? 2. What will the trends look like when projected to 2030? ¨
¤ Without mainstream projects ¤ When other trends and drivers are considered
SEA approach: impact assessment 40
Impacts – overlay mainstream hydropower onto the baseline 1. Will the mainstream projects affect the trends in key issues? 2. Will those affects provide benefits and/or costs? 3. Will those affects enhance or reduce sustainability? ¨ SEAs are a form of sustainability analysis – where economic, social and biophysical trends and effects are considered ¨
SEA approach: analysis of avoidance, mitigation and enhancement 41
Avoidance, mi0ga0on and enhancement Ques,ons to be addressed: 1. how will the most important risks (nega,ve effects) be avoided? 2. how will the most important benefits (posi,ve effects) be enhanced? 3. how will the nega,ve effects that can’t be avoided be mi)gated – i.e. be reduced? ¨
Definitions: Avoidance 42
AVOIDANCE means the complete avoidance of one or more possible adverse impacts For example: i. If the Lao cascade projects go ahead: The Lao op,miza,on study led to the reduc,on in dam heights in the cascade which avoided flooding of Thailand by Pak Beng ii. Not to proceed with any mainstream projects would avoid all risks associated with the developments iii. Deferment: postponement of the decision to proceed to allow for technological and ins,tu,onal innova,ons and studies which might allow for some risks to be avoided.
Definitions: Enhancement 43
ENHANCEMENT means improving the benefits derived from project development. [related to improving development effec)veness, management of risk, regional and local distribu)on of benefits].
For example: i. Assure adequate provision of electricity supply from LMB mainstream projects for local domes0c use (i.e. demonstrated link to rural electrifica,on poverty allevia,on - energy poverty). ii. Promote or strengthen appropriate ins0tu0onal coopera0on arrangements to ensure coopera0ve management of transboundary risks, mi,ga,on management, compliance verifica,on, sharing of benefits, etc.). Consider a Mekong Fund as a financing and equalizing mechanism.
Definitions: Mitigation 44
MITIGATION means the reduc,on in the intensity or coverage of an impact if one or more projects go ahead. [related mainly to the regional distribu)on of adverse impacts and related transboundary impacts.] For example: ¨ Sequence LMB mainstream dam development to reduce, minimize and defer the highest poten,ally significant livelihood impacts in view of consensus livelihood impacts are highest for lower schemes, especially in terms cap,ve fisheries and sediment, sediment-nutrient impacts). ¨
Ensure effec0ve ins0tu0onal arrangements for coordinated opera0on of reservoirs forming cascades (e.g. opera,on in low flows periods, flood management, sediment flow, emergency preparedness measures, etc.).
Possible categories of measures for each strategic option 45
A range of measures at regional or na,onal level including for example: ¨ Ins,tu,onal structural innova,ons ¨ Policy and procedural innova,ons ¨ Addi,onal studies where there are knowledge gaps or uncertain,es ¨ Capaci,es that may need to be strengthened ¨ Ac,ons required to improve management and enforcement
SEA Avoidance, enhancement, mitigation process KEY ISSUES
Power & Energy
1. 2. 3.
… … …
Economic systems
1. 2. 3.
…. … …
Hydrology & Sediment
1. 2. 3.
…. … …
Aqua,c
1. 2. 3.
… ... …
Terrestrial& agriculture
1. 2. 3.
…. … …
Fisheries
1. 2. 3.
… …. ….
Social systems
1. 2. 3.
… …. ….
Naviga,on
1. 2. 3.
… … ….
Climate change
1. 2. 3.
… .. . …
STRATEGIC OPTIONS Avoidance, Enhancement, Mi0ga0on
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Opportuni,es & risks
Focussing on the BIG STRATEGIC ISSUES
THEME
1
• Not to proceed with the mainstream projects
2
• Defer a decision on whether or not to proceed and in what form and circumstances
3
• Proceed with mainstream development on a gradual phased basis
4
• Proceed with rapid development of all 12 projects
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
The “big strategic issues” 47
1.
2. 3.
Power security and genera0on including revenue, trade and foreign investment Economic development and poverty allevia0on Ecosystems integrity and diversity – aqua)c, terrestrial, hydrological dynamics and sediment/nutrient transport.
4. 5.
Fisheries and food security (including agriculture) Social systems - livelihoods and the living cultures of affected communi)es
48
E. SEA findings Findings and conclusions for the “big” issues
1. Power Generation & security 49 ¨
¨
Large projects producing significant amount of power: 14,697 MW, or 23 - 28% of the na,onal hydropower poten,al of the 4 LMB countries But not cri0cal in terms of regional power sector: ¤
¤ ¨
¨
6-8% of the projected LMB power demand for 2025, equivalent to the expected LMB energy demand growth rate experienced in one year between 2015 and 2025 Minor impact on electricity prices at regional(<1.5%) and na,onal levels
Lao PDR gains most from the overall mainstream power benefits, but has many alterna,ves for export & domes,c supply The mainstream proposals are most cri0cal to power sector development in Cambodia ¤ heavily dependent on expensive imported oil and most limited range of alterna,ve op,ons
2. Economic development & poverty alleviation– export revenues 50
¨
Export revenues are es,mated to be worth ~USD3-4billion/yr for all 12 projects ¤ ¤
¨
During the BOT* concession period (0-25yrs): ¤ ¤
¨
Lao projects: USD 2.6-2.8billion/yr Cambodian projects: USD 1.2-1.4 billion/yr
26-31% of project benefits would accrue to na,onal governments Remainder to developers, investors and project expenses
Awer handover: ¤
States would accrue all benefits but all maintenance/repair obliga,ons
*BOT = Built, operate, transfer
2. Economic development & poverty alleviation – FDI & sectoral impacts 51
¨
¨ ¨
FDI ~USD25billion for all 12 projects – significant economic s,mulus to the host countries and the region ~50% of FDI would be spent outside host countries Fisheries and agriculture: losses are an order of magnitude greater than the realis,c benefits to those sectors ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¨
Fisheries losses ~USD 476 million/yr Agricultural losses ~USD 33.1million/yr Reservoir fishery gains ~USD 14million/yr Expanded irriga,on ~USD15.5million/yr
LMB mainstream projects would likely contribute to a growing inequality and a short to medium term worsening of poverty in LMB countries
52
2. Economic development & poverty alleviation - conclusions ¨
¨
Insufficient na,onal and regional capacity to ensure that benefits accruing at the na,onal level are transferred to the local level short to medium term: interna,onal financing organisa,ons & bilateral partners will play a cri,cal role in developing the required ins,tu,onal and regulatory capacity
53
3. Ecosystem integrity – habitat & connectivity ¨
The mainstream projects would cut the longitudinal connec0vity of the Mekong ecosystem, compartmentalising it into smaller and far less produc0ve units resul0ng in an irreversible compromise to natural system integrity: ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¨
~55% of the river Chiang Saen – Kra,e will become reservoir ~5% of the river would experience permanent water levels great than 1/1,000yr event ~40% of the Mekong River’s wetlands be affected ~ 17% of which would be permanently inundated by the LMB mainstream projects Loss or reduc,on in important Mekong transi,on seasons Not a significant regional impact on the Mekong flood regime from individual projects due to small reten,on ,mes Sediment load drop by ~50% for 2030 without LMB mainstream Sediment load will drop by 75% with LMB mainstream with major consequences for delta stability, floodplain fer,lisa,on and coastal fishery
Peaking opera,on: 3-6m spikes in water levels in towns 40-50km downstream of a project ¤ ¤
Liele ,me for no,fica,on (1-2hours) Poten,ally even larger during emergency or unplanned releases
3. Ecosystem integrity - biodiversity 54 ¨
Permanent and irreplaceable global loss of biodiversity, including the ex,nc,on of a number of globally endangered species, which cannot be compensated ¤
¤
¨
¨
The loss of habitats would encourage the prolifera,on of generalist species river fragmenta,on would isolate aqua,c popula,ons into pockets leading to a loss of species
Adverse impacts to Mekong aqua,c systems & geomorphology would be unavoidable Terrestrial ecosystems: ¤ ¤
generally more locally based impacts can be mi,gated or compensated by measures for rehabilita,on and re-crea,on (e.g. conserva,on offset programmes)
55
4. Fisheries & food security production Mainstream projects: ¨
¨
¨
¨
Would fundamentally undermine the abundance, produc0vity and diversity of the Mekong fish resources, affec,ng the millions of rural people who rely on it for nutri,on and livelihoods total loss in fish resources ~660,000 t/yr from all hydropower ~340,000 tonnes/year from mainstream projects ~110% the total annual livestock produc,on in Cambodia & Lao PDR
4. Fisheries & food security – food security 56
¨
Rural and urban communi,es living within 15 km of the Mekong River would experience greater food insecurity due to: ¤ the reduc,on in capture fisheries ¤
¨
¨
net loss of subsistence agriculture and river bank gardens.
Climate change would have an exacerba,ng effect on the mainstream dam food security effects. Substan,al losses in the fresh and marine capture fisheries and in Delta aquaculture would have basin-wide impacts on ¤ ¤ ¤
the fisheries sector, associated ancillary and processing industries, fisheries associated livelihoods, health and nutri,on
4. Fisheries & food security – mitigation & conclusions
57
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
Fish passes are not a realis,c mi,ga,on op,on for Mekong mainstream dams Reservoir fisheries cannot compensate for the loss in capture fisheries ~10,000t/yr Aquaculture can complement the Mekong capture fisheries sector but cannot replace it in terms of food security
The financial, ins,tu,onal civic services and facili,es required to address these food security issues along more than 1,500 km of transboundary river bank are immense and beyond the current capaci,es of the LMB region and its governments to address. The magnitude of risks in Cambodia, Lao PDR and on Viet Nam’s delta economy requires: ¤ ¤
detailed assessment of impacts on food security and livelihoods, iden,fica,on of realis,c solu,ons, and the development of alterna,ve food supply op,ons prior to decisions on the mainstream projects.
5. Livelihoods & living cultures 58
¨
¨
Significant effects on riparian communi,es by disrup,ng their ways of life, cultures and sense of community 2.1 million people, ~10% of people living & working within 5 km of the river, are expected to be most at risk to the direct and indirect impacts of the LMB mainstream dams Direct impacts:106,942 people ¤ Indirect impacts: 2 million people ¤
5. Livelihoods & living cultures mitigation
59
¨
¨
The experience in providing the needed long term, consistent and sensi,ve adjustment and support programs for communi,es affected by hydropower has not been good in the LMB region. Owen it requires capaci,es and approaches to programme and budget management that are not in place.
The SEA stakeholders concluded THEME
ISSUE
LAO PDR
CAMBODIA
THAILAND
VIET NAM
Changes in nutrient transport
Terrestrial ecosystems and agriculture
Habitat loss and degradation
Changes in Land use
Changes in irrigated agriculture
Changes in River bank gardens
Aquatic
Change in productivity of aquatic habitats
ecosystems
Changes in populations of rare and endangered species
Changes in water quality
Changes in long distance migration
Changes in fish species biodiversity
Changes in fish production
Changes in health and nutrition Social effects of resettlement, land acquisition and loss of access
Changes in cultural values and patterns
Achieving energy security
Meeting national energy demands
Meeting local energy needs
Relative emissions of green-house Gas
Hydrology and Changes in patterns of maximum water levels, rates of rise and predictability 60 sediment Changes in sediment transport and deposition
Fisheries
Social systems Changes in poverty and natural resource based livelihoods
Economics
Contributions to national economy - Export earning Contributions to national economy - Foreign Direct Investment Contributions to local economies (district and community level
Energy and Power Climate change
Direct impacts of climate change on hydropower projects - extreme events & dam security Combined effect of climate change and mainstream dams on food security
The SEA stakeholders concluded 61
q
q
q
All groups recognised that benefits would be focused on power & economic themes while risks would focus on natural & social systems, par,cularly fisheries and hydrology & sediment All groups were concerned over poten,al for increased poverty from mainstream development despite recogni,on of high returns from power sales The Lao group placed highest significance on the power benefit, while the Viet Nam and Thai groups gave the least significance to this benefit – even though they would consume most of the power
The SEA team concludes (1/2) 62
1.
2. 3.
4.
5.
Globally important river: The Mekong is one of the few remaining interna,onal rivers undammed over most of its length; Irreversible change: One dam across the Lower Mekong mainstream commits the river to irrevocable change; Interna0onal tensions: The proposed developments when under construc,on and opera,ng have the poten,al to create tensions within the LMB; Impacts are unavoidable: Many of the risks associated with the proposed mainstream developments cannot be mi,gated at this ,me – they would represent a permanent and irreversible loss of environmental, social and economic assets; Weak ins0tu0onal capacity: There are many and substan,al gaps in ins,tu,onal and procedural arrangements for ensuring the effec,ve management of construc,on and opera,on of the projects;
The SEA team concludes (2/2) 63
6.
7.
8.
9.
Weak regula0on: Cri,cal na,onal capaci,es in terms of personnel and skills are not yet in place to oversee, control, monitor and enforce safeguards and opera,onal rules; Weak safeguards: The framework of regional standards and safeguards rela,ng to trans-boundary and downstream effects and ins,tu,onal arrangements for their enforcement are not fully developed and are not adequate; Big uncertain0es: There are so many remaining uncertain,es and serious risks associated with the developments that more studies are needed to beeer inform responsible decisions making; Knowledge gaps: The state of knowledge about the Mekong is not considered adequate for making an informed decision about mainstream dams at this ,me;
64
E. SEA recommendations
To dam or not to dam… 65
1
• Not to proceed with the mainstream projects
2
• Defer a decision on whether or not to proceed and in what form and circumstances
3
• Proceed with mainstream development on a gradual phased basis
4
• Proceed with rapid development of all 12 projects
To dam or not to dam… 66
1
Main costs? ¨
Laos: Loss of poten,al export earnings and direct investment
¨
Cambodia: Concerns for long term domes,c power supply
Mi,ga,on?
2
¨
Development of power supply alterna,ves
¨
Economic adjustment package
Main costs? ¨ Laos: Postponement of export earnings and direct investment ¨ Cambia: Con,nuing problems in mee,ng domes,c power demand Implica,ons? ¨ Cambodia – Support in exploring power alterna,ves ¨ Provides breathing space for decision makers to be beeer informed of the costs and benefits and tradeoffs ¤ Regional ac,ons ¤ Na,onal ac,ons
To dam or not to dam… 67
3
Main costs? ¨
Cumula,ve losses in other sectors, uses and natural/social systems
¨
A propor,on of mainstream power, export earnings and FDI forgone
Implica,ons? ¨
¨
4
Provides opportunity for learning and feedback for improved mi,ga,on Provides opportunity to avoid most serious impacts
Main costs? ¨
Cumula,ve economic, social and environmental costs associated with individual and cascades of projects
Implica,ons? ¨
Challenges with effec,ve oversight and enforcement of avoidance and mi,ga,on
the SEA team recommends (1/2) 68
1.
Decisions on mainstream dams should be deferred for a period of ten years (strategic op0on 2) n
2.
with reviews every three years to ensure that essen)al defermentperiod ac)vi)es are being conducted effec)vely.
As the highest priority, the deferment period would
include a comprehensive undertaking of feasibility studies for par0al in-channel, diversion and other innova0ve systems for tapping the power of the mainstream in ways which do not require dams across the full breadth of the river channel. n
would involve governments in partnership with the MRC, mul)-lateral development banks and developers
the SEA team recommends (2/2) 69
1.
2.
The deferment period would also include a comprehensive assessment and fast tracking of tributary projects that are considered feasible and ecologically sustainable according to current interna,onal best prac,ce, including retrofizng of exis,ng projects and innova,ve genera,on technologies. systema0c distribu0on of the SEA report within each LMB country n
3.
in na)onal languages and consulta)on with line agencies, private sector and the NGO community.
The Mekong mainstream should never be used as a test case for proving and improving full dam hydropower technologies.
Deferment: critical steps 70 ¨
Deferment must not be a passive postponement of dam building. It needs to be an intensely crea,ve and produc,ve strategy for sustainable development of the Mekong mainstream ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤
Agree on a road map with decision points for re-considering "to dam or not to dam". Fill the energy gap: par,cularly for Cambodian power sector Fill the economic gap: Alterna,ve pathways need to be found for economic development not dependant on the immediate economic benefit from Mekong mainstream hydropower. That may involve special adjustment packages consolidated by interna,onal development partners, especially for Cambodia Develop alterna0ve designs for harnessing energy of Mekong mainstream without damming the whole channel Prepare a “plan” for the Mekong mainstream: framework of zoning & safeguards for conserva,on of cri,cal Mekong assets Develop ins0tu0onal mechanism to plan & manage mul0-sector development with regulatory authority to enforce and manage major transboundary developments Develop an independent regulatory authority for mainstream hydropower which has the technical capacity, and legal mandate to set and enforce design, maintenance and opera,onal standards Mekong River Basin Management Fund to finance a range of ac,vi,es including transboundary mi,ga,on and benefit sharing, heritage protec,on and enhancement, research and development, and monitoring
Key entry points for international organisations, donor agencies & bilateral partners in regional planning 71 ¨
Mekong Mainstream Plan: MRC to prepare through wide consulta,on with LMB countries ¤ ¤
¨
¨
¨
No exis)ng plan or analy)cal framework for zoning of the Mekong riparian zone based on cultural, social & ecological aspects The Mekong River Plan would not be a development plan, but a resource management & development proposal assessment framework
Further Studies: focussing on fisheries/aqua,c systems, sediment dynamics, and social/cultural systems MRC SEA Protocol: MRC protocol with procedural guidance for SEA for transboundary decision making Mekong Fund: MRC should develop the concept of a Mekong fund further and put proposals forward for agreement of the four LMB countries ¤
¤
mechanism for raising and managing funds from mul,ple sources including contribu,ons from tariffs, private developers, contribu,ons from development partners (bi-lateral and mul,-lateral IFIs) and Dialogue Partners, as well as poten,al new financing sources such as interna,onal carbon financing Focus on transboundary mi,ga,on, benefit sharing, heritage protec,on, R&D, monitoring
Immediate next steps 72 ¨
¨
¨
systema,c distribu,on of the SEA report within each LMB country in na,onal languages support given to facilitate consulta,on on it with line agencies and the NGO community prior to decisions being made on the mainstream projects. Na,onal groups suggested various other steps in the process to op,mize usefulness of the SEA report to LMB countries including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Considera)on of the report by the MRCS Joint CommiBee Considera)on of report by the Na)onal Mekong CommiBees Further technical consulta)on on the report with line agencies in each country Considera)on of the report by na)onal cabinets Considera)on of the report by natural resources and environment parliamentary commiBees Convene mul)-stakeholder conferences in each country and at regional level to discuss the report Establish regional technical task forces on the key strategic issues where uncertain)es and significant risks remain.
73
Thank you! ¨
For SEA documents please visit: ¤ www.icem.com.au ¤ www.mrcmekong.org/ish/SEA
Jeremy Carew-Reid:
[email protected] Tarek Ketelsen:
[email protected]
