Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Do you think environmentalists block development of Laos ?


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1451
Date:
Do you think environmentalists block development of Laos ?
Permalink   



Photo: NT2, Laos

Do you think that the environmentalists block the development of Laos ?

In the last three decades of my professional career, I watched supinely important water resources and agricultural development projects being hijacked by my environmentalist colleagues. In Laos, one of the least developed countries of the world according to the UN’s Human Development Index, the development of small and medium size hydropower schemes is under threat because some of them would displace ~ believe it or not ~ 28 households or about 140 people. As many as a dozen international NGOs descended on Laos to defend the rights of 28 families! What they forget is that Laos is a sparsely populated country which is trying to rehabilitate and rebuild itself after being ravaged by internal conflicts and the Vietnam war during the 1960s and 70s. The north-eastern corner of Laos is still a no-go area because thousands of bombs dropped by the US air force still remain unexploded.


Photo: Resettled Village at NT2, Laos

 
Source: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=4&theme=&usrsess=1&id=168585



__________________
samakomlaoiconsz6.gif Make yourself visible, signup at samakomlao webboard. HERE


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 696
Date:
Permalink   

That's a very very difficult question, because there is not one universal answer.

The problem is : now, we know that most of what we build can have a huge negative impact over environment, and we know we will suffer of it one day.

So, the idea of "sustainable development" appear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
This mean that a development project is acceptable only if it preserve long term needs of the population, and for sure, this can be a "brake" to many development project.

But what about a development project that will make life better for people during 20 or 30 years, but that would also make things worse than the current situation after 30 years because of pollution or any negative impact over natural ressources that we need to live? Think about your children's future life, not only yourself.

As i ever said on this forum, "good development" is not always what it seems to be. Very often an idea or a project looks good at first view, but when you think carefully about it, consider the overall "goods and bads" of the project, you discover that the project mean more "bads" than benefits. In the past, we didn't have the knowledge to identify the negative effects of a "development project" before observe those consequences. But now, developped countries have expericence, they begin to realise their mistakes, and begin to be able to anticipate the problems.

In this situation, it's very intresting to have environmentalists who consider those questions and can influence the choises, technical and political decisions of development.

If the project is "not too bad', the environmentalist can propose/impose some complementary measures to reduce the negative aspects of a project. Of course, the immediate profitability of the project will be reduced, but the most important : the project would be acceptable even with a long term point of view and really benefit to the country and population.

If the project is really too bad, because the long-term negative effects are really too strong, the project will be blocked and it would be a very good thing, because at the end, the project would not have been "development project" but a "against development project".

The countries that start their development now should not copy the mistake of "developped countries" but on the contrary benefit from their experience, even if this make the development projects more complex and expensive.

But the problem is that some environmentalists do not accept ANY impact of human over nature. This mean they would do not care about the benefits for human... they will try to block the project as soon as there is a little impact over environment... let's say they will try to block ANY human project. We can call those persons "environment integrists", and i don't think their behaviour is good for humanity.

Everything is a question of balance. We know now that every development project can have bad impact over enviromement, and that we will have to support the (very bad) consequences one day. So it's good to have people to force us to improve the development projects to minimise the negative consequences, or even block the project if it reveals definitly too bad impact over environment, and think about alternative and better development solutions.

But it's not good if those people block every development project, just because they want to preserve 200% of nature, and don't care about people real living conditions. Such person would maybe like that every people on earth live just like animals... we cannot accept this.

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 14:36, 2007-09-04

__________________
http://www.paris-vientiane.fr


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 596
Date:
Permalink   

here, it is laos, not us, not sweden, not france or other country, i think we have the right to built what ever we want, what ever we need, i`m sorry for the 28 families, let`s relocate them in an approprited area where they could begin their new life in their new property.
as the french say : on n`a rien sans rien. we cannot get benefit without investing...

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 596
Date:
Permalink   

sorry, i`d like to say appropiate area

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 696
Date:
Permalink   

chiip wrote:

here, it is laos, not us, not sweden, not france or other country, i think we have the right to built what ever we want, what ever we need, [...]


For sure, but be aware of one thing: the negative effect of an hydropower project is far more than just dispace population :
- destroy forest that can give oxygen to breath, wood for building, animals to hunt
- have very bad effect on fishery (because fish cannot move as before along the river) . Maybe some people living along the river cannot any more eat fish as before
- give less or too much water after the dam, depend if they want to full or empty the dam
... and many more things.. i'm not expert, i cannot quote everything

So, yes, lao people are free to choose, but they have to get informed about all the positive and negative effect of the project before choose...

It's a chance lao people have that we didn't have in France
In my country, about 12% of our electricity come from hydropower stations (80% from nuclear). France don't have the BIG hydropower potential that Laos have, but we decided to exploit as much as we can the potential of our country.
I personaly think that hydropower is a good choise for electricity production, and i'm happy to see that Laos have a so big potential for this. I think it's a good idea to develop hydropower station in Laos, but lao people should not forget that not any energy source is 100% ecologic and respectfull of environement (even solar stations polute, because produce the solar panels need a lot of energy and polute, batteries that are sometimes necessary are worse again...).

When France decided to build hydropower station, they didn't know about all the bad effects and danger of this technology... as most lao people, France just considered population displacement and nothing more. But now, we have experience, we know that an hydropower station can cause many more problems, and if we had this knowledge before building our stations, maybe we would have decided differently (maybe build less stations, or smaller ones, or bigger, or take complementary measure tu reduce the bad effects...). So I Think Laos should benefits from this exerience and knowledge... that's why they should respect the environmentalists point of view and advices.... as long as those enviromentalists are reasonable and don't block all the project as a kind of "religion".

Did you see the other message about new "Vientiane institute of technology" :
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=98894&p=3&topicID=13361086
Laos will soom "produce" it's own enviromentalists and engineers specialisted in Environment. It's very important for Laos, because such people can help to take the really good decisions for the country about development, because they will think "sustainable development" and not only "économic development", but they will also know the needs and contrainsts of lao population better than any other foreign consultant. Because if economy development destroy many other human aspects of the society/country, sure it's not a good idea to go this way and it's better to do nothing. "economic development" should go with "long term human development" and that's a big chalenge that make everything much more complex.

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 12:50, 2007-09-05

__________________
http://www.paris-vientiane.fr
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Admittedly, nothing is perfect on earth. Good and bad things always come together. The matter is if it would be good than harm, then it would make sense to go ahead. 
The NGOs claimed that the development of small and medium size hydropower schemes is under threat in Laos because some of them would displace, for example in Nam Theum 2 elctropower dam project 28 households or about 140 people needed to displace or move to new place. The concerns of NGOs is that they fear that Lao govenment cannot find new place for these people since the north-eastern corner of Laos is still a no-go area because thousands of bombs dropped by the US air force still remain unexploded.
I think, the NGOs have really not good reasons, they know Laos not so well. Our population is small, but our country is quite big compared to Singapore.  These people can be moved to another place easily. It seems to me they are useless in our country. They just try to make things more difficult when it comes to Lao society development, although they know Laos is poor country. They still want Lao people become poorer and poorer. I really don't understandideaideaideaideaidea  


__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

The issue here is that if LAO allowed those people to interfere too much with LAO decision then forget about the word CIVILISATION and DEVELOPMENT, then people talk trash look down on LAO, you are behind ....something like that. Of course if country like France did not build hydro-plant but they built nuclear power plant which considered dangerous and very expensive....whether LAO will choose this option...perhaps not...because of the cost.
Talking about forest, trees...if we look at Brazil, they just wiped out the rain forest...to raise cattles for US Mcdonal, or beep for hamburgers....but where all activists...come back to this issue again, at the end you must choose which way which direction you want to go? Stay backward, behind or you must use your resources to develop your country.weirdfaceidea



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 696
Date:
Permalink   

Everything is a question of balance...

Block an important development project to avoid displace 150 people is certainly stupid.
But ensure that the displaced people will be displaced in good conditions, that's a clever way to adress the problem.... and displace people is not as easy as it seams to be, because if you change their environment, you'll also force them to change their way of life (with some goods and bads, as always)... and changing their way of life can make them loose their roots and can cause many social trouble (people victims of alcohol, drugs, delinquences, diseases... ). I've read some studies about this made by both farang and lao scientists (not environmentalist NGO's). But for sure, there is a lot of place in Laos and if things are made carefully, displace small populations in good conditions is certainly possible.

Everything should be studied case by case to take the best decisions.
Foreign experts can bring their experience about such projects, experience they have gained from other projects in the world
Lao people can bring their knowledge of local specificities, people needs, lao environment...
And by making those people working togather, sure the best decisions will be taken for Laos.

"Reasonable enviromnentalists" can just help lao people to avoid taking some decisions that they could regret in a few or many years.

But i agree with some of your comments: people who don't care about the benefits for lao people have nothing to do in this affair. But don't forget one thing: there is 2 kinds of people like this:
- "environmentalist integrists" who would not accept any tree to be cut or animal to be kills... ready to do everything they can to preserve 200% of nature
- but also "economic growth integrist": people who just want to earn money by any way, and don't care the consequences of what they do for other people, especialy for people living near their project. Money for important development projects in Laos often come from other countries or foreign companies. And they do it because they can make some profit with the project... some of them don't care at all if the project really benefits to lao people or not. They don't care pollute (respecting the law or not), they don't care about "unexpected consequences", they are also ready to corrupt officials to make their project accepted... Laos should be very carrefull with such companies/persons/countries.Those people too have nothing to do in Laos: they sell dream, but when the dream become real, you discover that's it's a nightmare!!!!

For my part, i just want the best for Laos... the best for today, but also the best for tomorow. I know my country well, i'm intrested in the many problem we have to face (some caused by "development"). I discovered Laos a few years ago, and i discovered a country certainly poor, but also preserved from many many problem we have in "developed country", and i think Laos should try (and can) develop but also do everything possible to avoid those problems at the same time. This mean Laos should follow it's own way. Of course it'much more difficult than just copy others, but it's clearly what Laos should do to get the best future. Moreover, just 'copy' other would leave Laos always "behind", because others progress too.

Let's invent this own way togather ;)
I'm very sorry that i don't speak better English or Lao, because i feel many people on this forum don't understand what i mean. It seems my explanations in english are not clear and complete enough to convince them...

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 16:42, 2007-09-05

__________________
http://www.paris-vientiane.fr
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Some NGO they may have a real worry about the impact. This can give us a contructive comment to improve our dam building. but some NGO have clearly bad intention to the development of our country. Example, now they shout loudly to people in around the world that the contruction of dam in Laos have threaten, and try to protest to stop those projects. but if we look their countries, they have many huge dams generating an electricity to their population and selling to others, so now they are rich. therefore, they know that these dam can bring a lot cilivization to country rather than disaster. So they just want to block us.
not only a dam contruction, but also many projects of development they opposite. these kinds of NGO are bad,or really bad. becareful.  

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Sabaidee sahai and pee nong

I believe Hydro-plant will bring light and prosperity for LAO. To say if we built this plant in that area will affect the life of lao residents who live in the perimeter of the power plant....how many of them....more than 100. I think before the power plant is on the construction map, the people in those villages must live in darkness, no electricity, and in poverty. Now they were moved to a new place with Sattelite TV and electricity then you see their life is improving....far more better to live in the dark. If a person says he enjoy living without tv, without electricity and prefer candles rather than fluorescent lamp, I think he lied.biggrinbiggrinbiggrin



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 596
Date:
Permalink   

i agree that dam could have a bad impact with environment but we cannot stop the power plant which will give us the possibility to immerge from poverty and we could derive bad impact for contructive way as fish breeding , ecotourism or other ecomonic potential, i think that it is better than doing nothing and let the water flowing and going its way as centuries ago, ngo may give good advices but in this case, it is a question of development of the country, we do want to go forward, we do not want to be anymore backward as before.

regards

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

The 'environmental movement' is just another manifestation of the false consciousness of the post-industrial urban middle classes who seek to lay their shame upon the impoverished masses of the world, the same masses that they have forgotten through the performance of their lavish consumer lifestyles and ideological obsession with image, divorced from any relationship to the material means of survival. Human advancement is a product of the ruthless exploitation of natural resources and the constant search for new and inexhaustible sources. The lives that are spent in this search are the price paid for the survival of humanity, a viral organism with no symbiotic relationship to this planet. The inevitable path of this progress will lead us into space, searching for new hosts. We have already imagined it, we only need now to act.

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

The rich countries always do whatever to serve their interests first, so it's terrible to run around and tell and criticize country like LAO, just to build some hydro-plants...that's a kind of hypocrite and ugly as we can see. 1 document produced by BBC talking about the rich countries pay Brazil so it keeps it rainforest....and what in reality told us, not a single rich country wanted to do that. Again is the first world which consume more and destroy more than the poor countries. If you know David Suzuki of Canada, he produded many documents to tell us just that. To find way to reduce the harm to this planet.
I believe whatever LAO did to advance the country comparing to the rich world...we are still in the green zone. Balance things out is also good for the country.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 696
Date:
Permalink   

Hey! You cannot angry someone belonging to the "rich" world from polluting too much, being a high-energy consumer,
and at the same time angry him for changing his mind, becoming aware of the big problems caused by the way of life in his country, and trying to dissuade other people from following the bad exemple of his country.
If you really decide to angry those people, you have to choose one of the 2 reasons, but it cannot be for both.

And about going to another planet to exploit it once Earth Planet would have been sterilised by humans, i'm affraid we will have to wait many decades or centuries before it would be possible... too late. And even if we can do it, is it really the purpose of humans to destroys living planets one by one to survive? can we be proud of ourself if we just live like that?

I said i think developing hydroelectricity is a good choise for Laos, because the country need to develop, and hydroelectricity is certainly one of the "less bad" solution to produce energy. I agree also that some enviromentalists, who just want to block every project, don't have acceptabe behaviour.... but don't forget also that if no-one would point out the dangers and bad effect of such projects, the electricity companies would build them without trying to correct the bad effects, without caring about displacing the population in good condition, without protecting the land arround the dam, etc...

If so many necessary and convenient accompaniement measures are taken in the case of NT2 projects, it's precisely because many people pointed-out the potentialy bad impact of the project upon nature and population living around the future dam. So Laos goverment imposed to spend 10% of the cost of the project for accompaniment measures, to make the project acceptable for population, and make local people realy benefit from the project. But what would have been the project if no-one would have identify the dangers and warn about them? Probably a disaster for local people, because industrials would have kept those 10% of the cost for them.

The world is not just back and white.... same for people... by listening some of your comments, seems that the only question is "should lao build more hydropower station or not?" and that the only possible answers are "yes" or "no". But things are much more complex, because the real question is "How Laos can build more hydropower stations, in a way that maximise the OVERALL benefits for lao people (not only thinking of money profit)?" and "Where is the limit between an good hydropower project (that should become real) and a bad one (that should stay one the paper)?" Hey! you cannot answer such questions with just a "yes/no" answer.
To get and answer to such questions, you need engineers, politics, sociologists and.... enviromentalists. If you can find all those skills in Laos, just use them.... if you cannot, you have to take them from other countries.

Moreover, the question is much larger than hydropower station, because you can ask the same question about every "development project" in Laos.

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 10:27, 2007-09-06

__________________
http://www.paris-vientiane.fr
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Buck har mung oi

I do not know what this fellow talking about, what do lao people think should we have hydro-plant so we can take the country forward....or staying backward, simple question? I want to hear people from LAO. Please stand up and answer this question?
biggrinbiggrinbiggrinyawnyawnyawn

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

We should use candles and oil or narm mun kad lamp so the activits who agaisnt LAO happy. kakakaka TAY TIEN TAY KARBONG AW DER POR MEA OY.biggrinbiggrinbiggrin



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 696
Date:
Permalink   

no no no! If you burn candles or oil, you will produce more CO2 and contribute to global warming.
If you want to make "extreme environmentalists" happy, you'll just have to live as animals! Live with the sun, that's perfect, you don't need artificial light!

lol... in fact no-one will never be able to satisfy them... that's why their behaviour is inapropriate, and lao people don't have to listen to them!

Considering that overall human benefits (even for long-term) are more important than financial profit and pure economic growth is certainly clever!
But thinking only about environment preservation, without considering human benefit is just stupid! Maybe those people want human being to destroy itself!

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 11:25, 2007-09-06

__________________
http://www.paris-vientiane.fr
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Greeting from Laos,

I really agree with many who mentioned earlier that if we entirely follow what environmentalists want we would live like animals. Nevertheless, we do listen to them so that we can improve our environment as some environment agencies are also reasonable, helping how to reduce the impact from the plant in particular cases. 
 
Yes,  we are for hydropower plants which would make our country prosperity in the future. That is the only answer. 

Regards,
TSP

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 596
Date:
Permalink   

i 100% agree with your posting which is reasonable mr paris-vientiane and i heard that our country is trying to build other 4 mega dams several times bigger then actual nt2 dam, let`s see whether ngo or environmentalists will try or not to block these constructions which will make great incomes to the country .
when the namngum was on construction we had no experience about timbers and the late government did not want to cut it down or had no facility for this purpose. but now we first cut down the trees for new locations construction before it would be submerged by the water...
regards.


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard