Myanmar Reassessing Controversial Myitsone Dam?


Myanmar, the birthplace of two major southeast Asian civilizations, is a land of contrasts.  It inhabits a particularly resource-rich corner of the Asian continent, and yet due to decades of war, dictatorship and civil unrest, it has become one of the poorest, most undeveloped nations in the world.  Its lush landscape is filled to bursting with valuable deposits of copper, tungsten, tin, petroleum, natural gas and precious stones as well as vast hardwood stands and saltwater fisheries.  At the same time, it lacks basic infrastructure such as paved highways; its train system hasn’t been updated since the late 19th century.

Not unsurprisingly, Myanmar also has a very poor record of environmental protection, and the controversial $3.6 billion Myitsone Hydroelectric Project on the Irrawaddy River highlights its weak-to-nonexistent regulatory system.

Led by the Ministry of Electric Power in conjunction with China Power Investment Corporation (CPI), this massive dam would create a reservoir the size of Manhattan on top of a major fault line, fundamentally altering the flow of the nation’s main waterway and impacting millions of rice farmers downstream.  Additionally, the dam would lead to the displacement of thousands of local villagers and drown at least one site of major cultural significance.

In 2009, when the Myitsone project was already moving forward, CPI belatedly contracted with a Burmese non-governmental organization (NGO) to conduct an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).  The report’s findings were not pretty.  Describing the dam’s massive environmental, social and economic impacts, including deforestation, erosion, cultural resource eradication, ethnic minority displacement, large-scale floodingx and major seismic risks, the EIA strongly recommended choosing an alternative site or scrapping the project altogether.

“If the Myanmar and Chinese sides were really concerned about environmental issues and aimed at sustainable development of the country, there is no need for such a big dam to be constructed at the confluence of the Irrawaddy River,” the report notes. “Instead two smaller dams could be built above Myitsone to produce nearly the same amount of electricity.”

The Myanmar government was not pleased.  Ignoring the EIA’s recommendations, it allegedly forced researchers into silence.  The report was concealed from the public for two years, until it was leaked by Chinese environmentalists this summer.

Opposition to this project has been growing, and now, some people can smell progress in the wind.   In early September, a major environmental conservation bill, initially developed by the United Nations in 1998 and then shelved for unknown reasons, underwent tremendous overhaul and was approved by the several key legislative players.  Last week, U Win Tun, the Minister for Environmental Conservation and Forestry, called the law “within arm’s reach.”

U Win Tun also commented on the Myitsone dam and pledged to reassess the original EIA.  However, it remains to be seen both whether he will follow these words with action and just how this new environmental law would impact the project.

Everyone agrees that it is important for impoverished nations to find viable sources of clean energy to encourage economic growth.  However, the Myitsone project contains an unacceptable level of risk, deeply impacting Myanmar’s environmental resources and its most vulnerable populations.

Take action, Care2 members. Sign this petition to urge Electric Power Minister Zaw Min to learn from the tragic mistakes of other industrialized nations, to continue to implement stricter environmental policies, and to stop this project. Progress at the expense of irreplaceable ecological resources is not progress at all.


Related Stories:

Xayaburi Dam Across The Lower Mekong Is A Bad Idea

Ethiopian Mega-Dam Causes Global Outrage

Of Nuns and Spaces in Burma


Terry V.
Terry V5 years ago

Earth Cry video

Ruth R.
Ruth R6 years ago

How much solar and wind could be place on individual buildings, or cities to supply a clean energy source that would supply all the energy needs of this country.

Carole R.
Carole R6 years ago

Thanks for the article. It makes us think which is really best.

Cristian Prisacariu
Past Member 6 years ago

Hydroelectric dams destruct the nature around them more or less. Environmentalists normally do not complain about dams. But this case is special because of its huge environmental and social impact. It is simply to much destruction. Alternatives can be found, in place of this dam. My opinion is that other stakes are in place, besides the hydroelectric power...

Christine Stewart

I hope they do no go through with the dam project.

Karen and Edwar O.
Karen and Ed O6 years ago

Jamie C.

It's time to move out of the 19th century. Dams are not the answer. China has destroyed it's environment, it's climate and it's culture by building the Three Gorges Dam.
At a time when the US is starting a program of destroying dams, this is no time to continue this suicidal construction of mega-dams.

"Let us a little permit Nature to take her own way; she beter understandds her own affairs than we."
-------------------Michel de Montaigne

Jamie Clemons
Jamie Clemons6 years ago

I usually agree with the environmentalist. But I still think Hydroelectric power is the way to go. this dam would create huge amounts of hydroelectric. Its the cheapest cleanest power source that we have. We need hydroelectric if we are going to shut down nuclear plants and go green.

M.E. W.
Mary W6 years ago

I lived in Myanmar for several years and know the country well. The only thing that influences the rulers in Myanmar is money, and sadly the Chinese have been throwing lots of it at them for years. This project (as with all that are funded by the Chinese) is not for the sole benefit of Myanmar - there is definitely something that will greatly benefit China too (most likely in terms of energy). From experience, I do not have any hope that the rulers of Myanmar will exercise any good judgement re. the construction of this dam nor will a petition have any influence on their decision.

Iona Kentwell
Iona Kentwell6 years ago

There must be an effective environmentally kind option for providing the kind of energy production they are aiming for. Yes Andrew, why not solar, or wind? Have they even looked at other options apart from their original proposal and the suggested two dams by the environmental body?

Andrew Carvin
Andrew Carvin6 years ago

Reinvest the $3.6 billion in solar panels instead.

They would probably get more electricity with none of the damage that the dam would do.

Stupid suit types don't realize their options.