Українська та світова література, літератури національних меншин

Дата добавления: 2015-09-15; просмотров: 583

1. What kinds of human activity are damaging to the Mekong river ecosystem?

2. What consequences do logging and large-scale fishing lead to?

3. What consequences does dam construction lead to?

4. What arguments in favour of dam construction do the Chinese present?

5. What concrete example shows that the economic justification of dam construction is highly questionable?

Article 1

Strangling the Mekong

Great civilizations have flourished along the banks of the Mekong River. It supports some 100 million people, who rely on the river not only for their food and water but also to irrigate crops and to travel from one place to another. It is, say Thais, the “mother of rivers.”

Now, like so many of the world’s waterways, the Mekong is under threat. Unplanned development has begun to threaten the river’s rich ecosystem, as well as the livelihood of communities along its banks. Constant logging has so eroded the shoreline in places that disastrous flooding is virtually guaranteed; last year’s floods in Cambodia and Vietnam killed 500 people and wiped out herds, crops and orchards. Large-scale fishing operations – some legal, some not – employ large nets and traps to catch hundreds of thousands of fish at one time. Together with poaching, this commercial fishing is wiping out certain species – among them the giant catfish.

But the greatest danger to the Mekong may be posed by the massive hydroelectric dams. The giant cement barriers provide electricity throughout Southeast Asia. But they also block the natural migration of fish and alter the level and quality of water.

As in other parts of the world, dam construction along the Mekong has also led to massive deforestation, the destruction of wildlife and the displacement of tens of thousands of poor people who live along the river, chiefly ethnic minorities. That kind of damage is leading to re-evaluation of whether the benefits of these dams outweigh their environmental and social cost.

In a report last summer, the Mekong River Commission warned that the Mekong’s fragile ecosystem was “deteriorating” and added: “Should the present rate of damage continue, forest cover, biodiversity, fish stocks and soil quality will be harmed to levels where recovery may not be possible.”

Over the last decade, the Mekong has been treated in many ways like a giant battery. Officials in China and Laos in particular have argued for the river’s potential to generate power and profits – and thereby to develop the still-poor regions. Beijing has already created one massive dam, the Man Wan, across the Mekong, 100 kilometers south of the city of Dali. Two more are scheduled to be completed and begin operation within the next two years; nearly a dozen more are in the planning stage.

The Chinese claim that the dams, meant to power the growing cities of Yunnan province, will not harm the Mekong. In fact, Beijing insists the dams will benefit downstream countries by “evening out” the river’s flow, reducing it in the rainy season and boosting it in the dry season. Those opposed to the dams, on the other hand, wonder what would happen during a catastrophic drought or flood in China. Would Beijing close its sluices during drought to preserve water, turning the downstream flow into a trickle? Would it fling open the gates during floods, releasing a wall of water that could literally wash away Thai and Laotian cities?

Those scenarios may be farfetched. But dams continue to play a key role in China’s modernization drive. Some activists worry that Beijing already acts as if it owns the Mekong. “China is unlikely to change any of its development policies because of a negative impact beyond its border,” says Chinese environmentalist Dai Qing.

Tiny Laos has not shied away from these massive projects. Development officials once pictured the country as the powerhouse of Southeast Asia, earning precious foreign exchange by selling electricity to Thailand and Vietnam. Captivated by the idea, Vientiane has signed preliminary contracts for the construction of 23 dams, and boasted that it would be exporting $350 million worth of electricity to its neighbors within a decade. Four large dams have already been built on Mekong tributaries and are producing electricity.

Laotian electricity exports this year will reach only $30 million, and some of the country’s leaders are said to regret the government’s obsession with dams. “Younger government officials are quietly fuming that so many resources went into dams for such minimal returns,” says a US aid worker in Vietnam.

Indeed, outside China the sentiment toward dams in Asia has shifted dramatically. Experts generally agree that dams destroy wildlife and fish habitats. But now even the economic justification for these massive hydropower projects is being questioned. Environmentalists say that once compensation costs for land and financial damage to individuals are factored into the cost of building dams, many hydropower schemes are not economically viable. Last year the mostly pro-dam World Bank and the World Construction Union released a major two-year study of the economic, environmental and social impact of 45,000 large dams worldwide. While acknowledging that “dams have made an important contribution to development,” the report added that “in too many cases an unacceptable and often unnecessary price has been paid by displaced communities and by the natural environment.” Experts estimate that upwards of 100,000 people in China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam have been forced from their homes by dams.

The report was particularly critical of the Pak Moon dam in Thailand. The barrier blocked fish migration in and out of the waterway. Of the 265 fish species in the Moon before the dam was built, only 96 remain – most of no commercial value. Fish catches dropped by 80 percent. As a result, most villagers near the dam moved to Bangkok looking for menial jobs. “If all the benefits and costs were adequately assessed, it is unlikely that the Moon project would be built today,” the study claimed.

(From ‘Newsweek’, abridged)