{"id":34606,"date":"2017-02-10T12:10:00","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T12:10:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2020-10-08T12:44:47","modified_gmt":"2020-10-08T12:44:47","slug":"9606-blasting-the-mekong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/nature\/9606-blasting-the-mekong\/","title":{"rendered":"Blasting the Mekong"},"content":{"rendered":"

The mighty Mekong has always beguiled explorers and travellers with its swirling rapids, rocky inlets and dotted islets. Currents, reefs and rocks have repeatedly thwarted attempts at smooth navigation since French colonial times, when explorers hoped to open up a lucrative backdoor trade route to tap China\u2019s vast markets.<\/span><\/p>\n

But today the natural landscape and the rich biodiversity of this great river are under threat from a plan to demolish the rocks and islets.
\n\u200b
\nKobsak Pootrakool, a deputy minister at the Thai Prime Minister\u2019s office, <\/span>told media<\/a> that China, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand will set up a team to survey the river. \u201cIt is necessary to make way for navigational improvements in the river to make it passable for 500-tonne ships, for the safety of goods and transport of people, as well as reducing risk from accidents,\u201d Kobsak said.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nDrone footage of islets on the Thai-Lao border (Image: Shinshiro Kenji Arthur)<\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cDevelopment Plan for International Navigation on the Lancang-Mekong River<\/span> (2015-2025)\u201d was approved in December, and has three phases: an initial survey, design, and environmental and social impact assessments.<\/p>\n

The plan requires the Thai authorities to implement the rock-blasting along a 1.6 kilometre stretch of the Mekong border with Laos, to enable much larger cargo boats to travel from Yunnan province (where the river is called the Lancang) to the ancient Lao capital of Luang Prabang, a picturesque World Heritage site 630 kilometres downstream. However, Thai authorities say this cannot be approved until the survey and environmental impact assessment (EIA) have been completed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Environmentalists are outraged by the project. Pianporn Deetes, the Thai campaigns director for International Rivers, said, \u201cIt is nonsense to exchange the world\u2019s best river [which hosts] inland fisheries feeding over 60 million people for commercial [transport of goods] that could easily come by road.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chinese experts say there is no evidence yet that the plan will harm the river\u2019s ecology. Zhu Zhenming, a professor of the Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences and an expert on Southeast Asia, told Xinhua<\/a> that opponents should wait until thorough environmental impact studies have been carried out before passing judgement. As for the potential threat to fish populations, Zhu said similar instances of clearing rocks and islets in Yunnan province had not caused major problems.<\/p>\n

This claim is disputed by International Rivers, a US-based conservation group. The NGO has documented <\/span>many benefits<\/a> that local people derive from the islets rapids and fisheries.<\/p>\n

\u201cRapids and reefs comprise some of the most productive riverine habitats, serving as vital breeding grounds and safe haven for fish. Blasting of the rapids would threaten the income and food security of villagers living in the area,\u201d states their briefing on the project.<\/span><\/p>\n

A long history<\/strong><\/p>\n

The strategy behind the recent plan dates to 1992 when the Asian Development Bank initiated a US$40 billion (275 billion yuan) programme to bring superhighways, power transmission grids, large dams, and mass tourism to the Greater Mekong sub-region.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s plan to dredge the river to allow commercial shipping kicked-off when the Commercial Navigation Agreement was signed by China, Laos, Burma and Thailand in April 2000, with the approval of a three-phase plan. Cambodia and Vietnam were not consulted.<\/p>\n

The first phase involved blasting eleven rapids and ten reefs in the river, to enable vessels weighing between 100-150 tonnes to reach the Thai port of Chiang Saen from Yunnan. In 2002, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra permitted the rock-blasting to proceed.<\/p>\n

However, China\u2019s environmental impact assessment on the blasting lacked almost any data on fish and ecology, and was rejected after an <\/span>independent assessment<\/a> by the Mekong River Commission (MRC)<\/a>. The MRC is an inter-government body set up to manage the international river, comprising Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.<\/p>\n

In 2003, China suspended rock blasting plans beyond phase one, after Thailand\u2019s Ministry of Defence objected that more blasting would also upset the Thai-Laos Mekong boundary demarcation that runs along the middle of the river.<\/span><\/p>\n

In December 2016, the old agreement was finally revived, but with a new survey proposed by the Thai cabinet.<\/p>\n

\"https:\/\/www.bangkokpost.com\/media\/content\/dcx\/2017\/01\/09\/2174905.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Who benefits?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

While the four MRC countries have generally endorsed the strategy of greater economic integration and improved Mekong navigation, justified by potential trade and tourism benefits, a full account of economic losses and environmental harm has yet to be undertaken.<\/p>\n

Author and Mekong historian Milton Osborne<\/a> has noted, that \u201cthe benefits of the increase of navigation on the Mekong between southern Yunnan and northern Thailand are currently overwhelmingly in China\u2019s favour.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thailand\u2019s Niwat Roykaew, head of the Rak Chiang Khong, a local community network based in Chiang Khong, argues that goods can now be transported easily via the R3A Highway from China to Thailand. Although Thai officials claim that shipping would reduce costs by 20% compared with road transport, <\/span>Saowaruj Rattanakhamfu, a senior economist at the Thailand Development Research Institute, was deeply sceptical<\/a> about the project\u2019s benefits.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs an economist, I don’t think it’s sensible to blow up those rocks to serve commercial trade in the river. The government should study whether it is really worth the investment as the project will have an immense impact on the poor,\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Critics also claim that the UNESCO World Heritage site of Luang Prabang, a major eco-tourist draw in the region, would soon find itself transformed into a busy and increasingly polluted Chinese trading hub, destroying its famed charm and serenity. Others argue the growth in shipping will bring more tourists and greater prosperity to the region.<\/p>\n

Crisis on the Mekong<\/strong><\/p>\n

The prospect of further rock demolition would be another serious blow to Southeast Asia\u2019s most important river, already reeling from the cumulative environmental damage inflicted by mega-dam constructions.<\/p>\n