Xayaburi Dam Across The Lower Mekong Is A Bad Idea

Back in February, my mother and father-in-law, Pia and Takato, took several boat trips on the Lower Mekong River, meandering their way from Thailand to Laos to Cambodia along with farmers, fishermen, their chicken, fish and other livestock.

They came back with intriguing stories of people from diverse ethnic groups whose culture and (mostly subsistence) livelihood are deeply entwined with the flow the Mekong. The river provides them with fish and tourist trade and, sometimes even gold (gold panning is a key source of income for many Laotian villagers). In the floodplains along the riverbanks villagers grow rice and vegetables – to consume and sell at local markets.

The Mekong, I’ve been learning, is one of the most biodiverse river systems in the world and is host to the world’s most productive freshwater fishery. More than 60 million people from Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam depend on the lower Mekong River for their livelihoods.

But Pia and Takato also came back with darker stories. Stories of dams – proposed and existing – that are threatening the unique livelihoods of these riverine communities as well as the river itself.

China has already placed three dams and plans to put up several more on the upper reaches of the Mekong. The existing dams, environmentalists say, have already led to a drop in the river flow – in 2010 parts of the Mekong were at their lowest level in 50 years – and are causing irreversible change in the river’s ecology. Then yesterday, I learned of yet another proposed dam across the river’s mainstream – the first ever on the Lower Mekong – that could further exacerbate the damage.

The proposed $3.5 billion Xayaburi dam in Laos “would cut across a stretch of the river flanked by forested hills, cliffs and hamlets where ethnic minority groups reside, forcing the resettlement of up to 2,100 villagers and impacting tens of thousands of others,” according to an Associated Press report. It could also push iconic and endangered fish species, such as the Mekong Giant Catfish, to extinction, says International Rivers.

The dam, which would generate power mostly for sale to Thailand, has pit Lower Mekong villagers and environmentalists against the Thai and Laotian governments (For Laos, one of the world’s most impoverished countries, the Xayaburi holds dreams of earning valuable foreign exchange). Chances are if Xayaburi gets the green signal, it would open the door for more dams on the Lower Mekong.

Since 2007, there have been proposals to put up 11 dams for the Lower Mekong River in Cambodia and Laos. The Xayaburi was the first of these to be submitted for approval in September 2010 by the region’s governments through a regional decision-making process hosted by the Mekong River Commission (MRC), a body set up by Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam to manage the river. The commission itself has serious reservations about Xayaburi.

An MRC study released in February warned that dams could reduce the fishery by 300,000 tons of fish a year, with serious consequences for a million people, especially in Cambodia, who depend on fishing. It also feared damage to migrations of about a 100 fish species, among a host of other environmental problems. In fact, MRC has recommended a 10-year moratorium on all mainstream dams on the Lower Mekong.

A decision on the whether to go ahead with Xayaburi or to impose a moratorium is due next Tuesday (April 19) when the MRC will hold a special meeting in the Laotian capital city of Vientiane.

For me, the answer is a no-brainer. Big dams need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

In the past century, poorly-planned, large dams have choked more than half to our world’s big rivers, wiping out species, flooding vast swaths of land, displacing millions of, mostly poor, marginalized and indigenous people. We don’t need more of these when there are better renewable energy options out there that we can, and must, explore.

Save the already threatened Mekong and the lives and cultures of the people who live beside it. Write to the region’s governments here asking them to cancel the Xayaburi project.

This post was originally published by Earth Island Journal.

Related Stories:

Ethiopian Mega-Dam Causes Global Outrage

Save the Amazon, Stop the Dam (Video)

Miserable Indoor Zoo in Bangkok Sparks Controversy


Photo from amirjina via flickr
written by Maureen Nandini Mitra, Managing Editor of the Earth Island Journal


Lionel G.
Lionel G.6 years ago

Financing for the Xayabun dam comes from Thailand. I suggest we all remind the Thai government that one-third of that country's GDP is tourism-derived, and that environmental damage knows no boundaries.
Chinese vice-premiere Wen has bravely taken a strong stand for investigating the harm done by the huge Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. Big dams are a damned big problem, anywhere, including the Columbia/Snake River watershed in our Pacific Northwest.

Masha Samoilova
Past Member 6 years ago

a very bad idea

Marcel J.
Marcel J6 years ago

Doesn't Thailand have it's own rivers to build a dam?

I agree with Pego R. that there are much better hidraulic alternatives than these huge dams.

However, we as environmentalists and as humanists must understand that renewable energy at a country level will require sacrifices, generally the poorest and most vulnerable. A good dam project assures that these people have an advantage from it and don't pay the price of progress, as always.

Danny W.
Danny Wilson6 years ago

So much for communism. Isn't all the electricity supposed to be free for the Vietnamese people? And haven't they heard what happened here in the US and other countries when dams are built? Must not have gotten that memo....

KARLOLINA G6 years ago

Earth is richly supplied with different types of living organisms, including animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria. Various living organisms co-exist in their environments, forming complex, interrelated communities. Living organisms depend on one another for nutrients, shelter, and other benefits. The extinction of any one species can set off a chain reaction that affects many other species, particularly if the loss occurs near the bottom of the food chain. For example, the extinction of a particular insect or plant might seem inconsequential. However, there may be fish or small animals that depend on that resource for foodstuff. The loss can threaten the survival of these creatures, and larger predators that prey upon them. Extinction can have a ripple effect that spreads throughout nature. A dam Dam would be devastating!

KAREN L6 years ago

The Aswan dam changed life for the Egyptians who already had very little fertile land as they saw their soil enrichment disappear once the Nile no longer flooded its banks....And all the other dams have created more problems than good.

John M.
John M.6 years ago

Will we ever learn? Why not. Build more dams, destroy the planet. Make more money. Why not.

Yvette T.
Past Member 6 years ago

Man impacts negatively life at every turn. I do not understand the thinking. We are to aid life whenever we have the opportunity, never harm or intrude on any path. Nature is much wiser than our limited brains, and we culturally seem pre-disposed to socialize ourselves into believing that the most unacceptable actions universally are somehow to be deemed as acceptable. We too often behave in exactly the opposite ways that are the sacred way that our higher selves know is the true direction to follow. Why do we willfully blind ourselves? So much suffering, so much filth, now coating everything that once was sacred.

Robert O.
Robert O6 years ago

I agree. This is a bad idea.

Alison Baker
Alison Baker6 years ago

Three Gorges Dam was a huge mistake. This one is as well.