[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DAM-L LS: World Bank on Pak Mun in the Bangkok Post (fwd)
Bangkok Post, September 1, 2000
COMMENT / ROOTS OF PAK MOON CONFLICT
Attack poverty, not one another
The impact on fisheries was not considered when plans were drawn up for the
Pak Moon dam, hence the heavy impact on people's lives, many of them sadly
impoverished to begin with, and the protests and demands for restitution.
J. Shivakumar
The uproar over the Pak Moon dam has resulted in a lot of finger-pointing.
Blame has flowed freely among all parties involved.
It has generated a lot of heat and noise but has not shed sufficient light
on the fact that the problems surrounding the dam are really problems
stemming from poverty.
The broadening of the protest to include a much larger group of people,
discussing a much wider range of issues, reinforces the point that there is
a deeper problem that goes well beyond a dam: poverty in the Northeast.
It is no surprise that most of the people gathered to protest are from the
country's rural Northeast, where poverty is stubbornly rooted. Nine out of
10 poor people in Thailand live in rural areas. Seven out of 10 of those
poor live in the Northeast, where 34% of the country's total population
live. The Northeast bears twice the average national burden of poverty.
While the Pak Moon project has helped consumers of power and the nation as
a whole through additional power production, it is apparently hurting a
number of poor and vulnerable local people.
This is a possible consequence of almost any dam, which is why measures to
minimise the impact are part of any dam project.
The state of the art on those measures is advancing rapidly. Because of
this and the degree of poverty in the Northeast, it is not surprising that
there is a lively debate surrounding the corrective measures embodied in
the Pak Moon project.
Several credible studies have confirmed that the issues of compensation and
resettlement for those directly affected have been handled adequately.
Likewise, with the health impact.
Not so, the fisheries issue. It has created problems that remain unresolved.
The project did not provide a set of baseline data on fisheries and
fishermen to enable us to distinguish between the project's impact on
fisheries and the impact of other non-project factors such as population
pressures, urban pollution and widespread poverty; or determine how many
fishermen would be affected and to what extent. In addition, the project
did not provide enough opportunities for fishermen to have a voice in the
management of fishery resources in the area.
While making provisions for the development of fisheries, the project was
not expected to, and thus did not, draw a line between what it could do for
the poor and vulnerable fisherman in the area and what was the legitimate
broader responsibility of the state outside the project.
As a result of what one today would classify as project deficiencies, the
project is now blamed for anything and everything affecting the fisheries.
For example, there is data to show that urban pollution discharged into the
river has caused damage to aquatic diversity, and fishing malpractices have
caused fish catches to dwindle. Yet, it has not been easy to convince
people of these points. The dam is more visible and a better target, so
naturally it has become the focus of the debate.
The environmental standards of a decade ago were applied to the impact of
the project on fisheries. The state of the art has advanced since then,
just as the world's view on poverty has evolved.
Poverty was once considered only on the basis of income.
But that definition has evolved to include much harder to measure factors
such as lack of security, opportunity and community, in addition to lack of
income. Projects are expected to address those issues, not only their
direct impact.
It is high time the parties involved stopped attacking each other and
joined forces to attack poverty in the Northeast, in general, and
rejuvenate the fisheries sector in that area, in particular. And the poor
must participate fully in this effort.
There are trade-offs. If you grow trees on your land, you may be
unwittingly putting your neighbour's vegetable garden in the shade. But
having all parties at the table improves the chances of finding the best
solution for everyone involved.
All of the stakeholders on Pak Moon should work together towards:
- Developing and implementing a poverty-alleviation strategy that would
improve livelihoods for the entire region;
- Implementing an improved framework for environmental management of the
river basin(s);
- Identifying and promoting technical improvements for managing and
augmenting fishery resources in the entire river; and
- Designing institutional arrangements that give fishermen and local
communities a voice in the management of fishery resources in Pak Moon area.
To foster this collaboration, government should establish a high-powered
commission, assisted by a multi-disciplinary team of experts and chaired by
a respected personality, to address these issues. This should not be just
another commission.
This group should be about action, able to bring in experts and funding to
address problems. Important to this effort would be the involvement of the
people themselves, systems to ensure transparency and regular progress
reporting; and a clear programme of action.
When the Pak Moon project was being processed in the late '80s and early
'90s, a number of issues were highlighted. How does one trade off the
benefits of a dam against its negative effects? How can negative effects be
mitigated? What criteria should we use to decide whether to go ahead with a
dam project?
These are the difficult issues which still evoke strong feelings. The World
Commission on Dams, established by the World Conservation Union IUCN and
the World Bank, is now attempting to bring about a global consensus on
these issues for the future. It is striving hard to deliver on its mandate.
All the stakeholders should not only fully participate in the high-level
commission suggested to recommend strategies and programmes to address
poverty in the Northeast but should also extend full support to the World
Commission on Dams which is dealing with the broader issues of the future
of dams.
These two initiatives will promise us a much better future. The focus must
shift from removing dams and removing protestors to removing poverty.
We should attack poverty, not one another.
- J. Shivakumar is the World Bank's country director for Thailand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -----