Information Packet

Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan
Contents
Foreword
Part I Briefing Papers
1. Diversity and Natural Abundance in the Mekong Basin
1-1. The Mekong River’s Natural Environment
1-2. Non-Timber Forest Product Use and Food Security: The Lao Case
1-3. Fish Diversity in the Mekong Basin
1-4. The Mekong River: The World’s Largest Freshwater Fishery1-5. The Mekong River and People’s Livelihoods
1-6. Another Type of Diversity: Languages in the Mekong Basin

2. The Changing Mekong Environment and the Impacts on People’s Livelihoods
2-1. The Mekong River Mainstream: Looking back on Hydropower Dam Development
2-2. Mainstream Dam Development: Construction of the Xayaburi Dam Forges Ahead without
Agreement
2-3. Mainstream Dam Development and Regional Civil Society Cooperation
2-4. Cross-Border Environmental Issues: The Sesan, Srepok, andSekong (3S) Rivers Dam Developments
2-5. Rapidly Advancing Mekong Tributary Development and its Environmental and Social Impacts:
The Case of the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project in Laos
2-6. Forests Disappearing from Mekong Watershed Countries
2-7. Livelihoods and Environmental Issues in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta
2-8. Riverside Agriculture in the Mekong Basin: An Uncertain Future for Environmentally
Friendly Agriculture
2-9. Shifting Cultivation and Upland Life in Northern Laos

3. People, Natural Resource Management, and Conservation of Ecosystems
3-1. Spirit Worship and Forest Conservation in the Mekong Basin
3-2. Reviving Culture and Environment: The Challenge of the Chong People in Eastern Thailand
3-3. Outlook for the Alleviation of Issues and Risks Faced by the Poor in the Mekong River Delta:
A Case Study of Ben Tre Province
3-4. Toward Community-Based Forest Management: Working with Local People to
Preserve Watershed Forests in Northern Laos

4. Transformation of Nature in Japan and Initiatives for its Restoration
4-1. Japan: A Forest-Rich Nation Buying Up Global Timber
4-2. Removal of the Arase Dam: Japan’s First Attempt to Dismantle a Hydroelectric Dam and
Restore the Original River Environment
4-3. The Past, Present and Future of Japan’s River Development

Part II Video in DVD
1. Transitions: Changing Forests Changes Lives in Laos
2. Protecting Native Species ―The Muong People in Vietnam
3. How Dams Disrupt Lives ―Experiences from the Mun River
4. The Lum Pa of the Oy People ―Fish Cultivation in Paddy Fields

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Foreword
Why the Mekong River?
The Mekong basin is one of the richest regions in the world in terms of biodiversity. In particular, the diversityof its fish species is second only to that of the Amazon River. Except for the highest reaches in the mountains,
the Mekong River and its tributaries flowing through continental Southeast Asia are not isolated from human
influence; on the contrary, they play a very intimate role in human livelihoods. The richness of the rivers’ fish
resources has provided a reason for many villages in the basin to develop fishing industries. People’s lives
are also supported by the seasonal inundation and exposure of the riverbanks, resulting from the influenceof the monsoons and dry season. When riverbanks are exposed, people can gather plants and raise crops or
release livestock to pasture on the riverbanks. In addition, wild edible plants, mushrooms, tree sap, etc., thatcan be collected in the forests of the basin provide food, fuel and medicine for the people. Products from theseresources also provide the means for generating important cash income for the basin’s farming communities.
Towns and cities are also scattered along the lower reaches of the rivers. These urban areas use water from the
Mekong basin in their municipal water supplies, and they flourish by relying on the rivers as the basis of their
existence through fishing and tourism industries. The Mekong Delta, at the river’s very lowest reaches, is oneof the world’s prime rice producing regions. The Mekong River brings benefits to a population of as many as 60
million people living near it.
The various countries of the Mekong basin have flourished through trade with Japan from long ago, and evennow, they provide an important production base for Japan’s manufacturing industries, with Thailand as arepresentative example. Also, as can be seen from the keen interest in Burma (Myanmar) recently, the regionis also attracting attention as a frontier for investment, and Japan has developed strong economic ties with it.
Historically, Japan once invaded the Mekong basin, using military might to obtain its resources.
The Mekong basin’s rich natural environment is of universal value to the world, and it has also played asignificant role in Japan’s history and economy.

Differing Perspectives on the Mekong River’s Natural Environment
After the long-continued Indochina war ended and peace was achieved in Cambodia in the early 1990s, privatecompanies, various national governments and international aid organizations began developing the region,
which they saw as being “behind.” Economic growth strategies are now the norm among policy-makers of thisregion, stressing economic growth through large-scale infrastructure projects, typically hydroelectric dams, inorder to reduce poverty in the Mekong basin. The forests and rivers of the region started out in good condition,
having narrowly escaped the war’s devastation, but now they are being endangered by development. Meanwhile,
there is growing concern among the basin’s inhabitants regarding environmental destruction and human rights,
and they have become strongly aware of the negative impacts of large-scale infrastructure development.
Since the year 2000, development has been progressing rapidly, with newly developing nations such as China,
South Korea, Vietnam and Thailand participating. Each of the basin countries is experiencing lively economic
growth, and they appear to be booming, but on the other hand, degradation and disappearance of the ecologicalresources of the rivers and forests progresses. In farming villages where the people’s lives are dependent on
natural resources, the quality of life is worsening due to the destruction of the natural environment. Largehydroelectric facilities are being built one after another in order to supply electricity to cities and industrial
areas, and the contrast of benefits to the cities and harm to the rural villages is engendering a sense of injustice.
There are signs of political disorder occurring in various areas, such as has been seen in Thailand in recent years.
In addition, the Mekong is an international river, spanning six countries. Development of dams on themainstream or tributaries results in clashes of interests among these countries, and no framework has beendeveloped to involve the region’s local people in the river’s management. There is a big gap in perceptions<Foreword>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>
on natural resources between the region’s inhabitants who utilize the natural resources and governments andprivate corporations that aim for economic development through large-scale development. This has had impacts
on the environment and society that transcend international boundaries and has created a societal structurewith complexly intertwining rivalries among the governments of the Mekong basin; between governments or
corporations and local people; and between local people who feel they benefit from development and those who
suffer the negative impacts.

Japan and the Mekong Basin—Past, Present and Future
As mentioned above, the connection between Japan and the Mekong basin is deep. Around the time of theSecond World War, as part of Japan’s efforts to secure natural resources, it advanced militarily into various
countries of Southeast Asia, including those of the Mekong basin. After Japan was defeated in WWII, however,it maintained strong economic ties with the region. In the Mekong basin, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., a private
Japanese company, drew up plans in the 1950s for development of a series of hydroelectric dams on tributariesof the Mekong River, and in the 1960s and 70s, Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the Japanese
government was implemented based on these plans. Thus, Japan has had both economic and social impacts on
the region. With the exception of Thailand, dam development in the basin halted with the Indochina war. Since
the war ended, development has accelerated, with the main players being the governments of China, South
Korea, Thailand and Vietnam along with private companies of the basin. It must not be forgotten, however, thatmany of the hydroelectric development projects currently advancing on the Mekong River arose from plansfrom Japan.
After Japan went through a period of being criticized for its ODA and economic activities, there might berecent changes in the way civil society in the Mekong basin perceives Japan. This can be seen, for example, inregard to plans to build the Xayaburi Dam on the Mekong’s mainstream. People would not oppose the Japanese
government to provide funding for additional investigation into the collective environmental and social impactsof all dam plans for the Mekong’s mainstream as long as certain conditions are met. Japan might be perceived as
an important actor who can play a more positive role in the future of the Mekong River.
Prior to its period of high economic growth, most of Japan’s population lived in rural villages called satoyama.
These were areas where people lived in harmony with the natural environment, and where use of nearby
secondary forests supported their livelihood. With the advancement of industrialization, satoyama have almost
disappeared, so it is nearly impossible to find places in Japan where people’s livelihoods both depend uponand contribute to the natural environment in the way that rural communities still do in the Mekong basin. Even
in Japan, however, there are attempts to restore ecosystems and preserve biodiversity. The climate change
crisis has given rise to a new perspective on sustainable resource use that reduces energy burden, leading
to the rediscovery of satoyama. It is not a major trend yet, but excessive development is being remediatedand hydroelectric facilities have begun to be dismantled in order to restore the environment. We hope that byinforming the countries of the Mekong basin about natural resource restoration underway in Japan, we can provide
them with an incentive to recognize once more the value of their own traditional ways of living.
Similarly, Japanese society has much to learn from people of the Mekong River Basin. For Japan’s future,
Japanese need to learn how natural resources of the Mekong basin are used sustainably. This will help us torediscover satoyama, to remember how the natural and social environment once was in Japan, and to restore theconnection between nature and humans that used to exist. We can learn from each other.

The Aim of this Information Packet
In order to achieve sustainable resource utilization, we think it is important to make use of the experience andwisdom of local people. In order to achieve this in the Mekong basin, it will be necessary first to exchange basic
information across international boundaries on the diverse natural environments of the Mekong basin and how
they are used. There is also a need currently to share information with the citizens of China and South Korea,<Foreword>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>
who exert a big influence on development of the Mekong River. We are translating this information packet into
a number of languages to convey this information to as many people as possible.
The information packet consists of two parts. The first part consists of Briefing Papers (BP) that sum up the
Mekong River’s environment and natural resources, the impacts of development, people’s resource utilization,
alternative local initiatives, and experiences in Japan, where the damage from excessive development has
already been acknowledged and new efforts are being made. Each BP is independent of the others, containing
facts and data that form the basis for each theme, and a sincere effort has been made to keep the descriptions
as simple as possible. We think that readers of the BPs can gain knowledge of basic facts and perspectives
for considering the future of the Mekong River. Many of the BPs have been written with information fromexperience gained by Mekong Watch through its activities. For that reason, they do not cover the complete
picture of environmental and development problems in the Mekong basin. We have provided references in each
BP which we think will compensate for what we have not been able to cover.
The second part of the information packet is a collection of video programs. In order to visualize the naturalenvironment valued by the people living in the Mekong basin and their livelihoods—which are difficult to reflectin economic indices—we gathered visual images of the ways people use natural resources in rural villages in
the Mekong basin, the effects of development, and people’s initiatives. We made videos ranging from 10 to 20
minutes, introducing, 1) the forests’ biodiversity, people’s use of resources and the impact of development in
Laos; 2) efforts in Vietnam to conserve the diversity of agricultural products of the hilly regions with the aim ofmaking agriculture sustainable; 3) examples in Thailand where the impacts of dam development and people’s
use of rivers can be seen; and 4) methods of raising fish in rice paddies devised by ethnic minority groups in
Laos. Much of the video content is also in the BPs, but we hope a video presentation will provide a more vivid
sense of the reality of local conditions.
In addition to this information packet, there are also resources available on Mekong Watch’s website. For
example, NGOs, researchers and journalists from Japan, the Mekong basin and East Asia were invited to aninternational workshop in Tokyo in December 2012 entitled, “Mekong’s Future, Our Future—Strengthening
East-Asia Civil Society Network to Monitor Mekong River Basin Development.” Citizen policy proposals were
produced at this international workshop, all of which can be seen on Mekong Watch’s website (http://www.
mekongwatch.org/). We hope you will have a look at this too.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the people of the Mekong basin who taught us many things in the field, and who
gave us their understanding and cooperation in the filming of the videos. Their support made it possible tocomplete this information packet. We regret that we cannot list all their names here. In Japan, we are gratefulto Ms. Shoko Tsuru, Vice-Chair of Kumamoto Nature Interpreter's Association, who shared her depth ofknowledge about the background and current status of the dismantling of the Arase Dam.
This information packet is the product of the “Green Mekong Initiative citizens’ publication and citizen
proposals regarding conservation of the Mekong basin ecosystems making active use of traditional natural
resource management,” a project supported by the Mitsui & Co., Ltd. Environment Fund. We are deeply
grateful for their assistance spanning three years. Also, for production of the videos contained in the information
packet, we received support from the Japan Trust for Global Environment, Lush Japan Co., Ltd., and the
McKnight Foundation. We want to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to them. In addition, thefieldwork and local investigations to gather the knowledge and information included in the information packet
were accomplished with the aid and assistance of the Nippon Koa Omoiyari Program, the AEON Environmental
Foundation, the Keidanren Nature Conservation Fund, the Toyota Foundation, the Japan Trust for Global
Environment, and the Nippon Foundation API Fellowships Program. We express our gratitude to them all. Notethat the content and claims contained in this information packet are those of the authors and Mekong Watch
only, and have no connection with any of the above-named aid organizations.
<Foreword>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

1. Diversity and Natural Abundancein the Mekong Basin
1-1. The Mekong River’s Natural Environment
The Natural Environment in the Mekong Basin
The Mekong River is an international waterway that begins in the Tibetan Plateaus and flows
through the Mekong Delta into the South China Sea, and it is second only to the Amazon in aquatic
biodiversity (Peterson and Middleton 2010). Along with 850 species of fish, there are 20,000 speciesof plants, 430 animal species, 1,200 bird species, and 800 reptile and amphibian species that live there(Thompson 2008). The entire river basin is 795,000 km2 and has a length of 4,909 km (MRC 2000: 5).
Langca ng

CHINA

R.

Yunnan Province
Simao

BURMA

(Myanmer)

Hanoi

LAOS
ChiangKhong

Luang Pabang

Vientiane
hr am

gk

Bangkok

.

R.

ong R
.

Mu

C hi

R

THAILAND

n

n R.

K

e San R.

P ho ng R . So

Se(Yangon).
kong R
Me

Rangoon.

S
Ratanakiri
Siem Reap
S re PokR
Battambang
Tonle Sap Stung Treng
Lake
PursatKompong
Chhnang
VIETNAMCAMBODIA

Phnom Penh

Figure 1: Mekong River

The distance between the source of rivers and the deltas in Japan is relatively short, and incomparison, the Mekong flows a very long distance (Tone River Management Office of the Ministryof Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, Kanto Regional Development Bureau). One of the
Mekong’s unique characteristics is that in spite of its length, there is not much difference in altitude
between the upstream (not including the river’s source) and the delta.
The Mekong River passes through the 6 countries of China (Qinghai and Yunnan Provinces), Burma/
Myanmar1, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, and then flows into the sea. In upstream China,
the headstreams of three of the world’s great rivers, the Yangtze, Mekong, and Salween flow in close
proximity, and this geography is known as the “Three Parallel Rivers.” The Mekong River then enters
Laos, flows along the border of Burma and Laos, and then after flowing along the Thai-Lao border,
enters Cambodia where it connects with the Tonle Sap Lake, a symbol of Cambodia. It then enters
Vietnam, where it is known as “Nine Dragons River.” The Mekong Delta in Vietnam is one of theworld’s largest rice production areas, and from there, the Mekong flows into the South China Sea.
<1-1>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

The Mekong originates with melting snow from the Himalayas. Water from the river’s catchment area
in China makes 16% of the river’s flow, and Burma 2%, Laos 35%, Thailand 18%, Cambodia 18%,
and Vietnam 11% (MRC 2005).
Catchment area
(km2)
Catchment (% ofentire watershed)
Volume (% ofentire watershed)

China

Burma

Lao PDR

ThailandCambodia

Vietnam

Entire Region

165,000

24,000202,000

184,000

155,000

65,000795,000

21

3

25

23

20

8

100

16

2

35

18

18

11

100

Table: Comparison of 6 Countries in the Mekong River’s Catchment Area (MRC 2005:1).

The Mekong River Basin has a tropical monsoon
climate. From mid-May to October, the southwest
monsoon brings the rainy season. From November
to mid-March, the region is affected by the northeast
monsoon to bring the dry season (MRC 2010: 14).
The dry season continues until April, and then again in
May the rains fall signalling the beginning of the wet
season. Aside from the area in China, the hottest timeof year is around April.
Annual rainfall in northeast Thailand’s Ubon
Ratchathani Province is 1,500 mm. This isapproximately the same as Tokyo, but as one canFigure 2: Temperature and Rainfall in Ubon Ratchathani
Prefecture (Thai Meteorological Department of Ubon see from Figure 2, rainfall is concentrated between
Ratchathani 2004)
May and September. From October, there is almost
no rainfall until May the following year when thewet season begins. The Mun River, which flows through Ubon Ratchathani, is influenced by this rain
pattern, so water levels rise in May to peak in October. Then from November to April, the water levels
again gradually decrease.
References
Mekong River Commission (MRC). 2005. Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin.
http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0001968-inland-waters-overview-of-the-hydrology-of-the-mekong-basin.pdf
Mekong River Commission (MRC). 2010. State of the Basin Report 2010.
http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/basin-reports/MRC-SOB-report-2010full-report.pdf
Peterson, B., and C. Middleton. 2010. Feeding Southeast Asia: Mekong River Fisheries and Regional Food Security.
Berkeley, California: International Rivers (IR).
http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/intrivers_mekongfoodsecurity_jan10.pdf
Thompson, C. 2008. First Contact in the Grater Mekong. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Greater Mekong Programme.
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/first_contact_final_report.pdf
Tone River Management Office of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, Kanto Regional Development Bureau.
What are the Unique Characteristics of Japan’s Rivers? (in Japanese).
http://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp/tonedamu/tonedamu00082.html (Last accessed on September 30, 2012)

Yuka Kiguchi

1. Through the remainder of this Briefing Paper (BP), simply “Burma” will be used.

<1-1>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

1-2. Non-Timber Forest Product Use and Food Security:
The Lao Case
The Importance of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs)
People living in agricultural villages in Laos are self sufficient, growing crops and collecting andconsuming food from forests and rivers. Approximately 70% of people live in mountainous regions
and practice shifting cultivation as one of a variety of agricultural practices (NAFRI et al. 2005). Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) have a very important significance for their livelihood1.
NTFPs are taken from the mosaic of forest and fallow lands created by swidden agriculture (NAFRI et
al. 2005), and the amount consumed is second only to the staple of rice (Foppes and Ketphanh 2004).
In agricultural communities in Laos, because farming depends on the natural environment, it isdifficult to maintain a steady level of food production. The role that edible NTFPs play is therefore
very important. In addition, less than 1/4 of a household’s total income is cash, of which income
from NTFPs is 40-50% (Foppes and Ketphanh 2004; NAFRI et al. 2005). There is a tendency forhouseholds with lesser cash income to depend more heavily on NTFPs (Greijmans et al. 2007; Rosales
et al. 2003).
NTFPs can be directly consumed as food, and they also support livelihood by being sold in domestic
markets or exported internationally. When people do not have enough rice, selling NTFPs enables
them to purchase rice, so NTFPs are especially important for people living in areas where riceproduction is limited (Foppes and Ketphanh 2004). It can be said that the traditionally sustainableagricultural practices of Lao agricultural communities have actually conserved the rich naturalenvironment, because the way they have managed and venerated forests ensures that NTFPs are notexhausted.
The importance of NTFPs in Laos can be summarized in the following categories: (1) food security;(2) cash or non-cash income; (3) agricultural community small-scale businesses; (4) construction
materials for houses, building tools; (5) medicine; and (6) conservation of biodiversity in wild animals
and wild and cultivated plants (NAFRI et al. 2005).

Use of NTFPs
It has become known that up to now, 700 varieties of NTFPs have been used in Lao agriculturalvillages (See Table). There are many different types of NTFPs, and it is clear that biodiversity has
been made use of in agricultural life. For people living in agricultural villages, aquatic animals (fish,
frogs, shrimp, snails, shellfish, etc.) and land animals (birds, rodents) are also forest products. These
are important sources of protein in the daily diet (Foppes and Ketphanh 2004).
There are about 25 varieties of NTFPs that are for commercial use, and NTFPs are important sourcesof income for agricultural communities. Edible products are bought and sold in domestic markets,and medicinal plants and spices are often exported to neighboring countries like Thailand, China, andVietnam. Benzoin is used for perfumes and exported to France, and aromatic trees are exported toJapan and Arab countries (NAFRI et al. 2005).
<1-2>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Category# ofproducts

Examplesfruit, seeds

87

sugar palm fruits, Baccaurea berries, Irvingia nuts

leaves86

Barringtonia, Lasia, Azadirachta, Centellashoots (spouts, stems)

23

bamboo shoots, rattan shoots, palm hearts

tubers, roots

22

yam tubers (Dioscorea), galangal roots

mushrooms

16

ear mushrooms, shiitake mushrooms, termite mushrooms
Sesbania, Butea

flowers4

all plants (subtotal)

238

fish

300

birds

63

Cyprinidae (Cypriniformes), Pangasiidae,
Siluridae (Siluriformes), Notopteridae
doves (Columbindae), partridges (Phasianidae), pheasants(Phasianidae), bulbuls (Pycnonotidae), estrildas (Passerinae)

mammals54

squirrel, wild boar, rats, civets, mouse deer

reptiles and amphibians

41

frogs, monitor lizards, snakes, turtles

mollusks

7

freshwater shrimp, crabs, snails, shells

insects

5

red ant eggs, bamboo grub, dung beetles

All animals (subtotal)

470

Total

708

Table: NTFPs used in Laos (based on Foppes and Ketphanh 2004)2

The Lao government understands the importance of NTFPs. However, because it decided to increase
the percentage of forest cover to 70% by 2020 (Lao PDR 2005), local governments tend to look onlyat this numerical target. Afforestation projects are being emphasized in order to increase forest cover,but some of these projects are implemented after logging natural forests first, so increasing forest
cover does not necessarily mean conservation of biodiversity, or villagers’ stable access to NFTPs.
References
Foppes, J., and S. Ketphanh. 2004. NTFP Use and Household Food Security in Lao PDR.
Forest Research Centre (FRC) and SNV Netherlands Development Organization.
http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc_en/doclib.nsf/0/BC0D1629438B4CAB472571420024AC37/$FILE/FULLTEXT.pdf
Greijmans, M., P. Phonnachith, P. Thongda, S. Ponpakdy, and N. Chantavong. 2007.
Selected NTFPs for Development in Phoukoun, Xieng Nguen, Ngoi, and Phakxeng Districts, Luang Prabang.
Luang Prabang, Lao PDR: World Vision.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR). 2005. Forestry Strategy to Year 2020 of Lao PDR.
National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES), andNational University of Lao PDR (NUOL). 2005. Improving Livelihoods in the Uplands of the Lao PDR, Volume 2: Options andOpportunities. Vientiane, Lao PDR: NAFRI.
http://www.nafri.org.la/03_information/sourcebook/Volume2.htm
Nonaka, Kenichi et al. 2008. Rice Paddies that Nurture Living Creatures and their Use. In Kenichi Nonaka (ed.)
Vientiane Plains Life: Diverse Uses of Environment in Rice Farming Villages. Tokyo, Japan: Mekong.
Rosales, R. M. P., M. F. Kallesoe, P. Gerrard, P. Muangchanh, S. Phomtavong, and S. Khamsomphou. 2003.
The Economic Returns from Conserving Natural Forests in Sekong, Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao
PDR: International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Kumiko Totsu and Yuka Kiguchi

1. There are various definitions of NTFP, but here we will define it as materials from the forest that people use and that are not made ofwood.
2. According to one Japanese survey, there are 17 insect species, including stink bugs (Pentatomoidea), scarabs, cicadae, and earthboring scarab beetles (Nonaka et al., 2008).

<1-2>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

1-3. Fish Diversity in the Mekong Basin
Fish and other freshwater aquatic species are the main source of protein for people who live in rural
areas of the Lower Mekong Basin (the four countries of the Lower Basin, not including China andBurma). With the exception of Vietnam’s Mekong delta, which is adjacent to the sea, the consumption
rate of freshwater fish is extremely high in almost all areas of the basin. This paper is an overview
of the use of Mekong River fish by people of the region from The Fisheries Baseline Assessment
Working Paper of the Mekong River Commission’s Strategic Environmental Assessment (ICEM
2010).

The Diversity of Fish Species in the Mekong Basin
The Fisheries Baseline Assessment Working Paper estimates the diversity of fish species in the
Mekong River from data registered in the FishBase database of fish inhabiting 204 rivers and 32 lakes
worldwide. According to data registered as of 2009, it has been confirmed that the 781 fish species
found in the Mekong River is second only to the 1,271 species of the Amazon River, showing that
the Mekong River is the second river in the world for fish diversity. According to a report by theWorld Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Mekong River basin is a biodiversity hotspot where more than 279
new species of fish have been discovered in the last decade. It was previously estimated that there
were around 1,200 species of fish in the Mekong River, but at present it is thought that there are 850
freshwater species, and that around 1,100 species inhabit the river if marine fish that make temporary
incursions into the Mekong River delta are also included. Furthermore, 197 fish species are registeredin the FishBase for the Cambodian lake Thonle Sap, indicating that this lake is fourth in the world forfish species diversity (Japan’s Lake Biwa is sixth, with 69 species).
The number of fish species in 20 locations in the river basin (including tributary river sub-basins) isshown in the following table:
Location
China-headwater
China-upper reachSpecies
24
34

Families
3
4

Endemic
4
4

China-middle reach
China-lower reach

48
122

8
21

7
15

Northern Laos
Nam Ou

140
72

30
15

26
29

Nam NgumNam Mang
Nam Kadinh

156
57
99

27
19
21

43
17
38

Songkhram
Xe Bang Fai

216
157

40
31

39
51

Xe Bang Hiang
Mun/Chi

160
270

33
38

47
49

Downstream of the Khone Falls
Stung Treng-Kratie

168
204

34
37

25
33

<1-3>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Sekong
Sesan

214
133

33
26

63
24

SrepokThonle Sap

204
284

32
45

38
31

Mekong Delta

486

73

28

Table: Species richness in 20 locations of the Mekong Basin (ICEM 2010:11)

It can be seen from the table that even excluding the Mekong River delta, where marine fish also
contribute to the diversity of fish species, the Mekong River and its tributaries are very rich in aquatic
life. There are especially abundant numbers of fish species in Thailand’s Songkhram River basin
and Mun/Chi basin, as well as in the Mekong mainstream between Stung Treng and Kratie, andCambodia’s Sekong and Srepok basins.
References
International Center for Environmental Management (ICEM). 2010.
Mekong River Commission (MRC) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Hydropower on the Mekong Mainstream:
Fisheries Baseline Assessment Working Paper. Vientiane, Lao PDR: MRC.
http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-the-mrc/programmes/initiative-on-sustainable-hydropower/strategic-environmental-assessment-ofmainstream-dams/

Yuka Kiguchi

<1-3>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

1-4. The Mekong River:
The World’s Largest Freshwater Fishery
Consumption of Freshwater Fish in the Mekong Basin
According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistics, 750,000 tons of freshwater fish arecaught every year in the four countries of the Lower Mekong. Field surveys, however, estimate around
2.1 million tons per year, equivalent to 18% of the global freshwater fish catch. Calculating from the
FAO statistics, the annual consumption of freshwater fish per person in the Lower Mekong is 13.8 kg,
while the global average is a mere 2.3 kg. The annual consumption in Cambodia is 19.4 kg, the highest
in the world. Summarizing further 20 freshwater fish surveys, the average annual consumption perperson leaps to 32.3 kg for Cambodia, 24.5 kg for Laos, 24.9 kg for Thailand, and 34.5 kg for Vietnam.
According to FAO data for 2000 to 2003,of the animal protein consumed per day,the proportion supplied by freshwater fish
was 49.8% in Cambodia, 38.31% in Laos,
16.19% in Thailand, and 12.87% in Vietnam,
which can be seen to be extremely highwhen compared with the global average of
5.78%. Cambodia and Laos are especiallyconspicuous in this regard.

Mekong River Fisheries
Recent data show that catches in Mekong basin fisheries are estimated to have an annual economic
value of between USD 2.1 billion and USD 3.8 billion, and between USD 4.2 billion and USD 7.6
billion at retail prices (ICEM 2010).
In the vicinity of the Khone Falls in southern Laos, the Mekong River mainstream fishing industry
supports more than 65,000 households. The average household in this area is thought to catch anannual average of 355 kg of fish, and consume 249 kg of fish. The total catch in the area close to
the Khone Falls is estimated at 4,000 tons, worth between USD 450,000 and USD 1 million (Baran,
Jantunen, and Chong 2008).
Some sources estimate that the freshwater fish production in Cambodia, including fish farming,
accounts for between 11.7% to 16% of the GDP, while another source estimates between 8% to 12%.
While these figures are all estimates, and it is difficult to obtain accurate statistics for small-scale
fisher-folks, the importance of the Mekong River fisheries can be understood from these approximate
data (ICEM 2010).

Fish Support Daily Life and Culture
At present, fish from the Mekong River Basin are being distributed across international borders due tothe development of refrigeration facilities and transportation networks. In fact, fish were an important
item of exchange in the barter that took place before the establishment of the current distribution system.
<1-4>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Until about 50 years ago, the exchange of fish and rice took place over an extensive region, including
southern Laos and northeastern Thailand. In the era when a subsistence lifestyle was virtually
universal, people spent much of their time gathering in order to secure food. In villages where themain vocation was farming, it was difficult to find time to obtain supplementary foods (to eat withrice) during the busy farming seasons of rice seedling transplantation and rice harvesting. At the sametime, in riverside villages where fish were available in abundance, fish were caught and processed
into fermented or dried foods, which the villagers then actively exchanged for the goods they needed.
Food was thus distributed across the region by barter.
These exchanges not only had practical aspects, but also social and cultural significance. A
northeastern Thai woman in her 70s relates that in her youth she would make large amounts of dried
and fermented foods, load them onto an ox cart and often set off together with a friend without first
deciding on a destination. She would then negotiate with people she met along the way to exchange
the fish products she had brought with her for rice and other agricultural products. There was no fixedexchange rate for rice and fish, so when she had a surplus she would give more to the other person,
and if she was in short supply she would negotiate with the other person to obtain larger amounts ofrice. It was explained that what was important in these negotiations was to be openhanded.
At the time, neither rice nor fish were distributed through the market, and so it was not possible to turnthem into cash. It can therefore be supposed that the people felt that there was no point in having afixed numerical exchange rate. Moreover, since rice and fish cannot be preserved for long periods oftime, rather than hoarding large amounts and then see it rot and go to waste, the social circumstanceswere such that the best way to prepare for the unexpected was to give generously to others, thus
heightening one’s reputation and strengthening interpersonal relations. We also learned from theinterviews that setting off to an unknown village, engaging in exchanges, and making new friends withthe people there was considered something enjoyable to be looked forward to. People who became
friends through such exchanges called each other siaow (meaning something like “a close friend”) andfrequently exchanged visits with each other. After a while, a marriage might take place between thetwo families, thereby strengthening the social link through a transformation from friend to relative.
Now that fish can easily be sold for cash, many elderly people lament the days when fish could beshared through exchange, but even today, when fish catches are good in southern Laos the fish are
given out to friends and relatives. In the villages of northeastern Thailand, when the fish catch issmall and the cost of the gasoline to take the fish to market cannot be recouped, the fish are sold in
the village at a very low price. The fish of the Mekong Basin even now play an important role instrengthening social relations, and support the food security of people who have limited opportunities
to gain cash income.
References
Baran, Eric, Jantunen Teemu, and Chiew Kieok Chong, 2008. Value of Inland Fisheries in the Mekong River Basin, Tropical River
Fisheries Valuation: Background Paper to Global Synthesis 227-290.
International Center for Environmental Management (ICEM). 2010. Mekong River Commission (MRC) Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) for Hydropower on the Mekong Mainstream: Fisheries Baseline Assessment Working Paper.
Vientiane, Lao PDR: MRC.
http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-the-mrc/programmes/initiative-on-sustainable-hydropower/strategic-environmental-assessment-ofmainstream-dams/

Yuka Kiguchi<1-4>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

1-5. The Mekong River and People’s Livelihoods
People and the River
The population of the Mekong River Basin exceeds 60 million. The population of the basin area inrespective countries is 5.2 million people in Laos, 23.1 million in Thailand, 13 million in Cambodia,
and 18.7 million in Vietnam1. Approximately 85% are agricultural communities (MRC 2010: 31-32).
Agriculture, fishing, and collection of aquatic life and vegetation are the main economic activities ofthe people in the basin, and about 62.6% of the working population in the region make their living
primarily from water resource related work (MRC 2010: 48).
The Mekong River not only supplies water for the region’s urban areas, it is also the source of water
for daily use in agricultural communities during the dry season. In villages along the river, almost all
drinking water, water for daily use, and water for agriculture depend on the river. The river is also
very important as a place for children to play.
When the water levels decrease in the dry season, theregion becomes very dry, and the river banks become
important places for farming. In addition, an importantsource of protein for agricultural communities is freshwater
fish that are caught in both the mainstream and tributaries,
as well as the wetlands and channels connected to them. At
present there are about 850 species of fish identified in the
Mekong River Basin, and most can be eaten. Aquatic life
forms, including fish and frogs, are people’s main sourceof protein, and are also an important source of income. If
seasonal labor and side businesses are included, 40 million people in the region are involved in the
Mekong River water system’s fishing industry. About 40% of the population of Cambodia depends on
the Tonle Sap Lake and the surrounding flood plain (MRC 2010: 49).
Rivers are also important transportation routes. It is not uncommon for people from multiple villages
on both sides of the river to be distant relatives. Previously, in Thailand’s Ubon Ratchathani Province,
people living on the Thai side would do their swidden farming in the mountains of Laos. For them,
the river was not a national border so much as simply something to cross.

Spiritual Beliefs and Rivers
The Mekong River and other rivers in the region have a special spiritual significance for people as well.
In Thailand, Laos and Cambodia, Buddhist temples and monasteries, which are central to people’s
faith, are often constructed along riverbanks. During field studies, there are frequent opportunities
to hear many folktales. For example, in southern Laos it is said that there is a naga (a deity taking
the form of a snake) palace at the bottom of the Mekong River. It is believed that strong spirits livein rivers and at other special places, so it would be dangerous to launch fishing boats or to walk pastcertain locations without offering prayers2. Along the Dom Noi River in Thailand, which is a tributaryof the Mun River, which itself is a tributary of the Mekong, people ask the spirits for permission before
fishing. Also, in Thailand and Laos it is widely said that rivers are vestiges of fights between naga.
<1-5>1<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Spirits are also said to reside in fish. In spite of its enormous size, very little is known about the lifeof the pla buk, the Mekong giant catfish, the world’s largest freshwater fish with adults weighing up
to 300kg. It is believed by Thai fishing communities, however, that the giant catfish lives according
to the Buddhist precepts and is holy because only moss and other vegetation have ever been found inits stomach. In northeast Thailand’s Ubon Ratchathani Province, it is believed that when this fish iscaught in one’s net, it is very inauspicious. These fish can now be sold for a lot of money, but because
there is fear of losing one’s life for committing the sin of killing this fish of merit, the fishers carry out
a formal Buddhist memorial service after selling giant catfish.
The river is also a place of festivals. Every year, there is aboat race on the Mekong River and its tributaries around thetime the rainy season ends. Also in April, the Thai and Lao
New Year, people celebrate along the riverbanks by building
sand towers in the shape of Buddhist stupas. The ceremonies
carried out in the World Heritage Site of Luang Prabang are
well known, but similar customs are also observed in lesserknown areas like the Mun River, a Mekong tributary innortheastern Thailand, and the Sekong River of Cambodia.

New River Uses
On the Bolaven Plateau of Laos, there is increasing use of small-scale hydropower generation using
small Chinese electric generators. These generators are sold at local markets, and the villagers
themselves can set up this simple and convenient apparatus if several households invest together about
USD200-300. A drop of 2 meters is sufficient to generate electricity. Thus, even without external aid,
villagers can use their own resources to attain and maintain electric power. In non-electrified villages
in Laos, some residents have set up battery charging businesses, giving birth to small-scale business.
References
Mekong River Commission (MRC). 2010. State of the Basin Report 2010.
http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/basin-reports/MRC-SOB-report-2010full-report.pdf

Yuka Kiguchi

1. The population of the Chinese portion of the basin is unknown.
2. For example, the mouth of the Pak Kading River in Laos’s Khammouan Province.

<1-5>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

1-6. Another Type of Diversity:
Languages in the Mekong Basin
A total of 398 languages are spoken in 5 of the Mekong
countries (Burma, Lao PDR, Thailand, Cambodia, andVietnam). This is equivalent to 5.8% of all the 6,909
languages in the world listed in Ethnologue. On theother hand, the number of speakers in these 5 countries
is only 3.2% of the world’s population, so this means
3.2% of speakers speak 5.8% of the world’s languages.
This falls short of the Pacific (0.1% of speakers, 18.1%
of languages) and the North and South American
continents (0.8% of speakers, 14.4% of languages), but
A Mon temple in Ratchaburi Province, western
Thailand (September 2012).
in comparison to Europe (26.1% of speakers, 3.4% of
languages) or Asia as a whole (60.8% of speakers, 33.6%
of languages), it can be said that there is a wide diversity of languages in proportion to the populationin the Mekong region1.
Country# of speakers
13,511,970# of languages # of Languages withfewer than 10,000 speakers
23
12

Examples ofminority languages
Brao, Samre, Sa’och

Cambodia
Lao PDR

5,349,894

84

47

Aheu, Arem, Chut

Burma

47,319,800

111

35

Anu, Tawr Chin, Hpon

Thailand

51,668,997

74

28

Bisu, Chong, Plang

Vietnam

75,650,099

106

42

Arem, Chut, En

Total (5 countries) 193,500,760

398

164

World total

5,959,511,717

6,909

3,524

Percentage

3.2％

5.8％

Table: Language diversity in 5 countries of the Mekong Basin

Minority Languages Support Diversity
Of the 398 languages spoken in the 5 countries of the Mekong basin, 164 (41.2%) have fewer than 10
thousand speakers2. While a language’s survival is not solely determined by the number of speakers(Nettle and Romaine 2000), after calculations from comparative examinations, Crystal (2000)
estimates that 50% of the world’s languages will disappear in the next 100 years, and the percentageof languages that have fewer than 10 thousand speakers is precisely 51.0% (3,524 languages).
Therefore, there is a possibility that 164 languages spoken by ethnic and indigenous peoples in the
Mekong Region will disappear during the 21st century. This calculates to a disappearance of 1 or 2
languages each year in the 5 countries of the Mekong Region alone. Languages have continually gone
extinct and evolved throughout human history, but the rate of extinction has increased tremendously
over the past 500 years and is a concern (Nettle and Romaine 2000).

<1-6>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

What are the Threats to Minority Languages?
The biggest factor threatening minority languages in the Mekong Region is the rapid proliferationof predominant languages like national and official languages. In
particular, public education encourages or even requires use andacquisition of predominant languages. While children of minority
groups need to learn national and official languages and have theright to do so, it is a problem that teachers and parents overtly or
covertly try to impede the use of minority languages. This leads
children to question the value of their birth and upbringing. As
a result, minority languages are not used at school, and not evenat home, so the language is not passed to the next generation. In
addition, predominant languages expand and exercise influence
through television, radio, newspapers and other mass media, as wellas pop culture in movies and music. In addition, with the Associationof Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration coming up in
2015, the already predominant “international” language of English Kmhmu women in Pak Beng District,is positioning itself as the predominant means of communication in Oudomxay Province in northern Lao
PDR.
the Mekong Region, making it all that much more difficult to bringattention to the value of minority languages.
Conflict and civil wars, natural disasters, epidemics, and (forced) relocation due to large-scale
development such as dam construction are also threats to the survival of minority languages. Speakers
of Moken, a minority language used by indigenous people living in southern Burma and Thailand,
were hard hit by the earthquake and tsunami of December 2004. Before that, they were alreadyeconomically and socially disadvantaged, but Moken speakers, particularly those living along thecoast who lost their essential boats and homes to the tsunami, are facing a crisis (Skehan 2012). Also,
villages of speakers of Ugong—a language in the Sino-Tibetan language family—living in western
Thailand were forced to resettle for the construction of a dam by the Electricity Generating Authorityof Thailand (EGAT). As a result, the cohesiveness of the local community was weakened, creating
more obstacles to maintaining language and identity (Bradley 1989).

Nyaheun women in the Xekong River Basin,southern Lao PDR.

The languages of indigenous and minority peoples arefilled with wisdom and knowledge accumulated throughgenerations of traditional lifestyles and surviving in
nature. Some researchers say people are born with a rightto language and culture (McCarty et al. 2007). With
the disappearance of a language, the wisdom it contains
is lost, and there is the danger of denying people theirrights to their culture. We are facing a crisis not only of
biological diversity, but also of language diversity.

<1-6>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>
References
Bradley, David. 1989. The Disappearance of the Ugong in Thailand. In Nancy Dorian (ed.)
Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 33-40.
Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th Edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
http://www.ethnologue.com/
McCarty, Teresa L., Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, and Ole Henrik Magga. 2007. Education for Speakers of Endangered Languages.
In Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 297-311.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000.
Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: UK, Oxford University Press.
Skehan, Craig. 2012. Time Running out for Moken Way of Life. Bangkok Post May 13, 2012.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/293059/time-running-out-for-moken-way-of-life

Toshiyuki Doi

1. In Africa, 12.2% of the world’s speakers use 30.5% of the world’s languages.
2. Nettle (1999) reported that the percentage of languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers is 92.8% in Australia/Oceania, 76.5% inSouth America, 77.8% in North America, 36.4% in Central America, 32.6% in Africa, and 30.2% in Europe.The global average is
59.4%, and the average in Asia is 52.8%.

<1-6>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2. The Changing Mekong Environment andthe Impacts on People’s Livelihoods
2-1. The Mekong River Mainstream:
Looking back on Hydropower Dam Development
Changes in the International Frameworkfor Mekong River Water Resources Management
The development of mainstream dams in the Mekong River has been proceeding with alacrity since
the year 2000. The history of these development plans goes back a long way to 1957. In that year,
Japan, the United States, France and other countries proposed an aid package for a Mekong River
Development Project at the Annual Meeting of the United Nations Economic Commission for Asiaand the Far East (ECAFE—now ESCAP, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and thePacific)1. The Committee for Coordination of Investigations of the Lower Mekong Basin (generally
known as the Mekong Committee) was established on the basis of a recommendation of this meeting.
The Mekong Committee was set up as an interstate mediatory body for the consolidation of MekongRiver hydropower and irrigation facilities, affiliated countries at the time being the four countries of
the Lower Mekong River Basin, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
After the First Indochina War broke out (1946-1954), however, the Lower Mekong River Basinwas engulfed in war, and in 1975 Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam became socialist countries. With
Cambodia isolated by civil war, the three other countries continued activities as the Interim MekongCommittee from 1978, but this did not lead to a movement toward cooperative development of the
Mekong River. After peace was once again established in Cambodia, the four countries reached
an understanding on the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the
Mekong River Basin (generally known as the Mekong Agreement) in 1995, and the Interim MekongCommittee was reformed to become the current Mekong River Commission (MRC).
The work of the MRC is to carry out mediation concerning water resource-related development, use,management and conservation in the Mekong basin. It is involved in a number of sectors including
irrigation maintenance and improvement with anti-drought measures, navigation, hydropower, flood
control, fisheries, basin development management, environment, and tourism. China and Burmabecame “dialogue partners” under a cooperative framework in 1996, but both countries have yet tobecome formally affiliated with the MRC (as of August 2013).
The MRC consists of three permanent organizations; the Council, the Joint Committee, and theSecretariat. Cabinet ministers and high-level government officials of the affiliated countries participate
in the Council and the Joint Committee, respectively. Each of the four affiliated countries has
established a National Mekong Committee (NMC). The MRC also holds an annual meeting to provide
the Donor Consultative Group—consisting of Japan and Western donor countries and international
agencies—with a forum to express opinions concerning the activities of the MRC.

<2-1>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Mainstream Dam Development
From the latter half of the 1950s, the MekongCommittee conducted surveys to identify
construction sites in order to push forward withthe hydropower and irrigation dam project in theLower Mekong River Basin. By the 1960s, theCommittee had prepared plans for seven large-scale
multipurpose cascade dams in the Lower MekongRiver Basin. These dams, proposed in the 1970
Water Resources Development Plan, were intended
to fulfill the purposes of hydropower, flood control,
irrigation and improvements in navigation. The
proposed dams had a combined power generating
capacity of 23,300 megawatts (MW) and would
hold more than one third of the Mekong River’s
total annual flow. These projects, however,
never came to fruition due to fears of social andenvironmental impacts, funding difficulties, and theconflicts in Indochina. In order to reduce the number Map: Mainstream Damof relocated residents, the Mekong Committee
subsequently proposed a large number of smaller mainstream dams in the Revised Water Resources
Development Plan of 1987.
Before disbanding in 1994, the Secretariat of the Interim Mekong Committee produced a reportfor the construction of a maximum of eleven dams in the Lower Mekong basin. According to theplan proposed in the report, a series of dams, from 30 to 60 m in height, would be constructedconsecutively, and the reservoirs would stretch over more than a total of 600 km along the length of
the basin. This was to be accompanied by the relocation of an estimated 57,000 residents. The report
also proposed an order of priority for nine dams that would have a combined capacity of 13,350 MW.
At present, in addition to the dam projects on the Mekong mainstream in China, there are plans for 12
mainstream dams on the Mekong River, including a project put forward by a private Thai company.
Of these, construction of the Lao Xayaburi Dam is now well underway.
Project name
(Location)
Pak Beng(Northern Laos)
Xayaburi(Northern Laos)
Pak Lay(Northern Laos)
Luang Prabang(Northern Laos)
Pak Chom(Thai-Lao border)
Sanakham(Northern Laos)

Capacity

Main purpose

1,230MW

Sale of power to Thailand Datang International Power Generation Co. Ltd., China

1,260MW

Sale of power to Thailand Ch. Karnchang Public Co. Ltd., Thailand

1,320MW1,500MW
1,079MW
700MW

Project body or company and home country

Sinohydro and China National Electronics Imports andExports Cooperation, China
Petrovietnam Power Engineering Consulting Joint Stock
Sale of power to Vietnam
Company, Vietnam
Thai Ministry of Energy and Lao Ministry of Energy and
Mines (Study commissioned)
Datang International Power Generation Co., Ltd. andSale of power to Thailand
Datang Overseas Investment Co. Ltd., China
Sale of power to Thailand

<2-1>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>
Ban Koum(Thai-Lao border)
Lat Sua(Central Laos)
Don Sahong(Southern Laos)
Thakho(Southern Laos)
Stung Treng(Cambodia)
Sambor(Cambodia)

2,175MW

Sale of power to Thailand Thai Ministry of Energy (Study commissioned)

686MW

Sale of power to Thailand Charoen Energy and Water Asia Co. Ltd., Thailand

240MW
50MW
978MW and591 MW
3,300MW and
2,600MW

Sale of power to Thailand,
Mega First Corporation Bhd., Malaysia
Cambodia, and Vietnam
Laos domestic
Compagnie Nationale du Rhone, France
power supply
and Electricité du Laos
Sale of power to Vietnam Open Joint Stock Co. Bureyagessttroy, Russia
Sale of power toThailand and Vietnam

China Southern Power Grid, China

Table: Project Names and Outline of Lower Mekong River Mainstream Dams

Upstream Development by China
Inside China’s borders, the Mekong River
is known as the Lancang Jiang. In 2001,
the Chinese government approved theimplementation of the “Xidian Dongsong”
project (West-East Electricity Transmission
Project) in its 10th Five-Year Plan. This is
a project to distribute the power generatedusing the abundant water resources of China’s
western regions to eastern regions such as
Guangdong and Shanghai, which have chronic
power shortages. The basin of the Lancang
Jiang in Yunnan Province is believed to havethe greatest potential for hydropower. In 2009,
the utilization rate of the Lancang Jiang water
resources was around 7%, but if all eightplanned dams begin operation by 2020 theutilization rate is predicted to rise to 58%.

Map: Lancang Jiang Dams

Of the eight dams, six (i.e., Xiaowan, Gongguoqiao, Jinghong, Dachaoshan, Manwan, and Nuozadu)
have been completed and are in operation. Two further dams (i.e., Ganlanba and Mengsong) are in theplanning stages. The Xiaowan Dam is a concrete arch dam 292 m in height, second only to the largest
dam in China, the Three Gorges Dam. The Xiaowan Dam is a multipurpose dam for flood control andirrigation, sediment control, and water transport, but its main purpose is power generation. It has agenerating capacity of 4,200 MW, roughly half of the power being distributed to Guangdong Provinceand other Chinese coastal provinces.

Sustainable Use of the Mekong Nowhere in Sight
As noted above, China is not yet officially affiliated to the MRC and has no forum for consultations
with countries in the lower reaches concerning Mekong River development. The Chinese government
holds to the perception that the downstream impact of the Lancang Jiang dam group is slight and has
continued pushing forward with development as it would with other domestic rivers. In the lower river
basin, Laos has gone ahead unilaterally with the construction of the Xayaburi Dam and the existenceof the MRC as a mediatory body is being called into question. As can be seen from the fact that dam<2-1>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

development on tributaries has already caused severe damage2, dam construction in the Mekong Riverbasin destroys the natural environment and threatens the lives of the people that depend on it. At thetime the Mekong Agreement came into effect in 1995, however, participation by major stakeholders(such as residents and citizens of the Mekong basin and researchers with specialized knowledge) inthe decision-making process on the development of the Mekong River was not one of the premisesof the Agreement. What is needed now is not Mekong River development that is premised on theconstruction of hydropower dams, but a detailed survey and forecasting of the accumulated impactsof development throughout the whole river basin. Based on such a survey, there should be mediationof the interests of all people involved. Discussion among governments and development organizations
is not enough. To establish sustainable use of the Mekong River, there is a strong call for the creationof a new framework in which a wide range of stakeholders, including affected communities and the
Mekong basin’s citizens, can participate.
References
China Newspaper Network. China’s Hydropower Base Moves West: Tibet, Qinghai, and Yunnan can be Bases (August 11, 2009).
http://energy.people.com.cn/GB/9833213.html
Mekong River Commission (MRC). Organizational Structure.
http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-the-mrc/organisational-structure/(Last accessed on July 31, 2013)

Yuka Kiguchi

1. See the BP 2-2 Mainstream Dam Development: Construction of the Xayaburi Dam Forges Ahead without Agreement for details.
Here we have summarized the history of hydropower dam developments in the Mekong River mainstream.
2. See BP 2-4 Cross-Border Environmental Issues: The Sesan, Srepok, and Sekong (3S) Rivers Dam Developments andBP 2-5 Rapidly Advancing Mekong Tributary Development and its Environmental and Social Impacts: The Case of the Nam Theun 2
Hydropower Project in Laos.

<2-1>
4

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-2. Mainstream Dam Development: Construction of
the Xayaburi Dam Forges Ahead without Agreement
According to a strategic environmental impact assessment (SEA) commissioned by the Mekong River
Commission (MRC), implementation of the 11 planned dam projects on the Lower Mekong Riverwould deal a destructive blow to the region, as outlined below1:
1） 55% of the river basin would become stagnant reservoirs or experience sudden changes in flow
due to dam discharge;
2） There would be a 26% to 42% decrease in the numberof fish species, resulting in an annual loss of 50
million USD. Reservoir fisheries would only make up
for one tenth of this loss;
3） Some 100 endemic and endangered species, such as
the Irrawaddy dolphin and Mekong giant catfish could
face extinction;4） Agricultural damage due to submersion would reachan annual 5 million USD. There would be more than A lookout onto the Mekong River Koogkoo
Rapids in northeastern Thailand’s Loei Province.
50% reduction in sediment load, blocking nutrients Chiang Khan District. Local people are
and making more fertilizer use necessary, incurring concerned about the Xayaburi dam’s impacts on
the area (May 2010).
additional annual expenses of 24 million USD. Losses
in riverbank farming would result in a loss of more than 21 million USD. The effect ofirrigation from the dams would only bring in about an annual 15 million USD;
5） Impacts would be felt on fertile flood plains and shores in places like Cambodia’s Tonle Sap
Lake and Vietnam’s delta region. Agricultural production and fishing in inland waters andalong the coast would suffer damage. In the delta region, there would be an acceleration oferosion on coastlines and in riverine systems; and
6） The livelihood and steady food supply for the approximately 30 million people who make theirliving from fishing would be threatened.
One challenge that the mainstream dams bring to light is the need for joint management and use ofnatural resources in the Mekong Region. This necessity can already be seen in the Sesan River Basin,
where dam projects in Vietnam are having transboundary environmental impacts on downstream
communities across the boarder in Cambodia, and effective solutions have yet to be implemented
either by the governments involved or MRC2. In regard to mainstream development, Laos, Thailand,
Cambodia, and Vietnam signed the Mekong Agreement in 1995. This agreement establishedprocedures for negotiation among the signatories, giving MRC its mandate. The MRC’s effectivenessis now being put to the test3.

The Xayaburi Case: The Lao Government Makes Mockery of the MRC
The project progressing most rapidly in the middle and downstream regions of the Mekong River isthe Xayaburi Dam project in northern Laos. In September 2010, the Lao government notified the MRCof the dam plans, and the negotiation procedures defined by the Mekong Agreement were used for the
first time. Civil society—including local and international NGOs and community organizations that
had already been voicing concerns and objections—and “development partners,” i.e., governments ofJapan, western nations and international financial institutions all became embroiled in the negotiation<2-2>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

procedures. Also, in addition to the aforementioned SEA, additional surveys on impacts on fisheries
and cost effectiveness calculations were conducted. As negotiations progressed, the Vietnamese andCambodian governments raised concerns, and Thai media revealed that the Lao government had
already begun construction related to the dam before negotiations were complete. This resulted ineven more criticism. The MRC, which civil society had been critiquing for its lack of transparency
and failure to disclose sufficient information, held its annual Council meeting (ministerial meeting)in December 2011, and there it was decided to implement an additional survey on mainstream dam
development to be funded by the Japanese and other governments. Prior to the Council meeting, theLao government pledged to halt construction until an agreement was reached among member nations.
Attention shifted to whether the Lao government would hold to its promise to stop construction in accordancewith the MRC Council agreement, and whether or not additional
studies were being done with sufficient information disclosure andstakeholder participation. The Lao government, however, continued
construction. Based on its own studies, it decided that the impacts of
the Xayaburi Dam would be minimal and unilaterally claimed that the
MRC negotiation process was complete. More recently, not only are thebenefits of the Xayaburi Dam being trumpeted in the government public
The Xayaburi Dam under construction relations paper, the Vientiane Times, Laos is even beginning to launch(July 2012 by International Rivers).
projects such as the Pak Beng Dam in the north, and the Don Sahong
Dam near the Cambodian boarder. While Laos is forcefully pressing forward with its Xayaburi Dam plans,
the MRC and development partners have not been able to come up with an effective course of action, and the
MRC in particular is finding that the Mekong Agreement, the foundation of its own existence, is falling apart.

Evidence-Based Consultations are Needed
As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, the two main challenges posed by dam projects on the
Mekong’s mainstream are: 1) a wide range of environmental and social impacts threatening foodsecurity and the livelihoods of tens of millions of people living in the Mekong Basin; and 2) the needfor an effective framework for joint resource management and use. The Lao government neglecting
the Mekong Agreement procedures and forging ahead with the construction of the Xayaburi Dam
are about the worst things that could happen in regard to these two challenges. Proponents of the
Xayaburi Dam should objectively review the studies which have made the dam’s negative impacts
very clear, recognize the current problems from a broad and long-term perspective, immediately
stop construction, and resume meaningful consultations with civil society. The MRC’s development
partners must provide financial and technical support to conduct supplementary studies to fill in theknowledge gaps (especially regarding transboundary impacts of the Xayaburi Dam) and make othersuch efforts to create an environment for discussion among member countries.
References
International Rivers (IR). 2011. Key Findings of the MRC’s Strategic Environmental Assessment on Mekong Mainstream Dams.
Berkeley, California: IR. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/foretelling-the-mekong-river-s-fate-2634
Mekong River Commission (MRC). Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin 5 April 1995.
http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/agreements/agreement-Apr95.pdf

Toshiyuki Doi

1. Based on International Rivers (2010)
2. See BP 2-4 Cross-Border Environmental Issues: The Sesan, Srepok, and Sekong (3S) Rivers Dam Developments.
3. See BP 2-1 The Mekong River Mainstream: Looking back on Hydropower Dam Development.

<2-2>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-3. Mainstream Dam Development andRegional Civil Society Cooperation
The current plans for hydropower dams on the Mekong’s mainstream dateback to the 1950’s. They were never implemented, however, due to the
Indochina wars and financing difficulties. Upon entering the 1990s, China
constructed the Manwan Dam on the mainstream of the Mekong within its
own borders, leading to increased awareness of the problems1.
China aims to use dams not only for irrigation and electricity, but also to Civil society actions against
stabilize the water level of the Mekong River so that large commercial the construction of the upper
ships can navigate the river throughout the year. With this aim, China mainstream dams in frontof the Chinese Embassy inbegan blasting and removing rapids on the mainstream in 2003 because the Bangkok (April 2010).
rapids inhibited navigation. This sparked much criticism from communities
in downstream Thailand. When the Mekong River’s water levels dropped drastically in 2008,
communities in northern Thailand were central in criticizing China’s mainstream dams. At this time,
the Chinese government was unusually responsive by accepting a letter from Thai affected people
through its embassy in Bangkok, but still no solutions have been reached. China has not officiallyjoined the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and though it is a member country of the AsianDevelopment Bank’s (ADB) Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) program, the program emphasizes
economic cooperation, so there is no effective framework to include civil society in dialogue andproblem-solving regarding transboundary environmental problems.
The Mekong mainstream dam projects of the central and downstream regions began to concretely
move forward after 2000. Wars that had previously prevented development ended and rapid economic
growth in emerging economies increased fund-raising capacities of companies not only in China, butalso Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries. Interest in hydropower has also been stimulatedby the rapid increase in demand for electricity in Thailand and Vietnam, and from the perspective ofpreventing global warming some are looking to hydropower as
an alternative to fossil fuels. On another front, involvement fromwestern countries, Japan, and other traditional donor countries
and aid agencies is far from absent. Through its GMS program,the ADB has made it easier for member countries and the private
sector to enter the hydropower business and is actively providing
funds for high voltage transmission lines. The Japanese private
Community representatives voice a sector, such as Tokyo Electric (TEPCO), Mitsubishi Corporation,clear “no” at a hearing on the Xayaburi and J-Power, are also stimulating capital involvement in Thai
Dam (February 2011 by Fukuoka NGO
electric companies. TEPCO bought stock in Electricity Generating
Forum on ADB).
Company (EGCO), and EGCO is in turn providing capital for the
Xayaburi Power Co. Ltd., which is the developer of the Xayaburi dam.
Around 1990, anti-dam movements by local people to protect the environment and their communities
became very active in Thailand. Then from 2000, a network was built based on this experienceto protect the Mekong basin’s environment and society as a whole, and international NGOs also
cooperated. This flow of events led to the formation of the Save the Mekong Coalition in 2009, and<2-3>
1<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

it has become a central actor in protesting the dam plans
for the Mekong’s mainstream. The difference between thiscampaign and more traditional anti-dam movements isthat it attempted to receive the understanding and supportof Thailand’s growing middle class, enabling photo
exhibitions in downtown Bangkok and picture-postcard
petitions. Petitions were sent to the MRC Secretariat andgovernments of member nations, and appeals were sent toThai fisher-folks displaying banners against thedomestic and international media. Save the Mekong is a
Xayaburi Dam to foreign delegates to the Asiavery loosely connected movement, and many participating
Europe Meeting (ASEM) held in Vientiane, Lao
PDR (November 2012 by International Rivers).
organizations are conducting their own separate activities.
In this context, there are groups providing information tocommunities in the basin, sending information to development partners, lobbying, and organizing
nonviolent demonstrations.
One noteworthy activity was that of Vietnamese NGOs approaching dedicated researchers withinformation. Due to this, information about the severe impacts of dams reached Vietnameseparliamentarians, and the Vietnamese government took a clear position against the Xayaburi Dam.
Activities in Thailand are more mixed. Thailand’s relationship with the Xayaburi Dam is multifaceted,because construction of the dam is being done by a large Thai construction company, Ch. Karnchang
Public Co. Ltd., and Thailand’s Electricity Generating Authority is to buy most of the electricity it
produces. Many local communities living in the north and northeast regions of Thailand, however,are to be negatively affected. In regard to purchase of electricity, adetailed study has shown that the Thai government’s projections forelectricity demand are exaggerated, and an alternative proposal has
already been submitted for ways to make up the demand with various
demand-side management measures and use of renewable energy(Greacen and Greacen 2012). A network of affected communitiesin Thailand’s north and northeast provinces was formed, and in
addition to holding assemblies in various localities, they filed a law
suit in August 2012 at Thai’s administrative court to confirm that theThai government’s electricity purchase agreement was invalid.

Save-the-Mekong Coalition co-hosted
the Delta Forum held in southern
Vietnam (August 2013).

While civil society movements such as these are watched for their ability to influence the directionof mainstream dam construction plans, they deserve more attention. Given the current political andeconomic trends towards regional integration that prioritizes economic goals, awareness of these issues
is transcending borders, and transboundary civil society movements can be expected to take shape.
References
Greacen, Chuenchom, and Chris Greacen. 2012. Proposed Power Development Plan (PDP) 2012 and a Framework for Improving
Accountability and Performance of Power Sector Planning. Bangkok, Thailand: Palang Thai.
http://www.palangthai.org/docs/PDP2012-Eng.pdf
Save the Mekong. http://www.savethemekong.org/ (Last accessed on August 20, 2013)

Toshiyuki Doi
1. See BP 2-1 The Mekong River Mainstream: Looking back on Hydropower Dam Development.

<2-3>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-4. Cross-Border Environmental Issues: The Sesan,
Srepok, and Sekong (3S) Rivers Dam Developments
Overview of the Sesan, Srepok, and Sekong Rivers
The Sesan, Srepok, and Sekong Rivers(collectively known as the 3S Rivers) comprisethe largest water system made of Mekong Rivertributaries. The 3S are all international rivers
that flow into northeastern Cambodia from theirsources in the plateaus of central Vietnam and
the Phu Luang mountain range in Laos. The
downstream region is made up of Cambodia’s
northeastern provinces of Ratanakiri, Steung
Treng, and Mondulkiri, where many indigenousand ethnic peoples live with differing livelihoods,
languages and cultures. There are approximately
70,000 people living along the three rivers
in some 127 villages, and their livelihoods
depend on natural river resources. This regionis also known for its rich natural resources andbiodiversity, and about 40% of Cambodia’s
natural forests are in Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri Map: 3S River basin
Provinces. The natural resources of the 3S river
basin are very important, not just from the perspective of environmental conservation, but for ensuring
food security and livelihood for people living in the region who depend on natural resources.

Transboundary Hydropower Dam Impacts
Because the three rivers are international waterways, upstream development is having a large
impact on nature and people in Cambodia. In 1993, construction of the Yali Falls Dam in Vietnam
began as the first hydropower dam project in the Sesan River Basin, at a point just 80 km within the
Cambodia-Vietnam border. In October 1996, there was floodingof Cambodian villages, the cause of which is attributed to abroken water diversion dam when the Yali Falls Dam was underconstruction. Since then, discharge of water from the Yali Falls
Dam itself impacts people with frequent and unpredictablefloods, deterioration of river water quality, decrease in fish catch,erosion of riverbanks, and impacts on riverbank farming. People
who use the river for daily life and drinking water are suffering
severe health impacts as well. According to an NGO survey Hospital inundated by flooding of the
conducted in 2000, 32 villagers drowned in floods over a four Srepok River (2009).
year period (Fisheries office and NTFP 2000). Since 2003, there
has been increasing dam construction on the upstream Srepok River, and just as with the Sesan River,similar impacts are being seen downstream in Cambodia.

<2-4>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

People living in Cambodia have continued to voice their concerns related to the dams’ impacts to theirown government, to the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and to national and international aid
agencies financing the dams, but development in Vietnam and Laos continues without consideration
for what occurs downstream in Cambodia, and affected people in the river basins who are facing great
difficulties are being neglected.

Insufficient Environmental Impact Assessment
In spite of unresolved issues of mitigation and compensation around the Yali Falls Dam, there aremany dam projects planned for the 3S region. One way of predicting, preventing, mitigating andmanaging the negative impacts of large-scale infrastructure projects such as dams is to carry out an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but the EIAs for these dams have been insufficient, andsome construction is in progress even without an EIA.
The area examined in the EIA for the Yali Falls Dam covered only resettlement and electricity
generation upstream of the dam, and a 6 km range downstream. While it would have been possible topredict the damages to water quantity, water quality, fishing and aquatic life, it was determined thatthe social and environmental impacts some 10s of kilometers downstream in Cambodia would be
minimal, and no survey was conducted.
The Sesan 3 Dam was constructed about 15 km downstream of the Yali Falls Dam, and its EIA
was conducted with technical support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The report wascompleted in 2000 but was not disclosed. In 2003, the EIA report was leaked, so its content became
known. In the process of conducting the EIA, no surveys were done in Cambodia, but the EIA
cited reports on the Yali Falls dam and other surveys, saying that the impacts of the Sesan 3 Dam
construction on Cambodia would be “extensively destructive,” and criticized the project for looking
too lightly upon the impacts downstream. In spite of this, the construction of the Sesan 3 Dam went on
without any mitigation or compensation measures for Cambodia.
Also, from 2005-2006, an environmental survey on how dam construction on the Sesan and Srepok
Rivers impact the environment downstream in Cambodia was conducted. While there are problems
with the surveys, such as impartiality, the post factum EIAs for the Srepok and Sesan Rivers in 2006
and 2007 respectively, recognized the claims being raised by villagers, and pointed out that future dam
construction would lead to additional negative impacts. Also at the post factum EIA hearing in January
2007, a promise was made to build regulatory dams on both rivers to adjust the flow when water isreleased from dams upstream. As of 2012, however, those dams are being promoted as hydropower
projects, so the promise of mitigation measures made to Cambodian villagers in the post factum EIA
are not being implemented.

Grassroots Efforts
In 2000, NGOs active in Ratanakiri Province led efforts to begin surveying the abnormalities of the
Sesan River and the damages suffered by people living nearby. Domestic and international NGOs
also formed a loose network called the Sesan Working Group to monitor the situation in the basin. In
February 2000, the Working Group surveyed all of the approximately (at the time) 90 villages locatedalong the Sesan River in Cambodia. The Working Group wrote a report of the overall situation andproblems facing the Sesan River.
<2-4>2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

After this report was released, MRC started an investigation in Ratanakiri Province in March the same
year. It also heard reports from the Cambodian and Vietnamese governments about transboundary
flood problems. As a result, the investigative team was able to confirm that there were indeed
unnatural changes in water levels, and it was recognized at the government level that the discharge ofwater from the Yali Falls Dam was creating floods across the border.
Since then, the Cambodia-Vietnam Joint Committee for the Management of the Sesan River(which now also discusses management of the Srepok River) was established as a place for the two
governments to negotiate. The Cambodian and Vietnamese governments also established a 5-point“solution” to prevent downstream damage from water discharged by the Yali Falls Dam. The jointcommittee, however, is largely controlled by the Vietnamese government, and participation by
Cambodian affected people and NGOs is not allowed. The promised advance notification of water
discharge is also actually being sent first to the MRC office in Vietnam, which then notifies the MRC
in Cambodia, and the notification is thereafter relayed from the central government, to the province,
the district, then the commune, and finally the village, so it is very rare for notification of the flood toreach villagers before the flood itself does. In reality, it is not working as a solution.
Even by 2001 the situation had not been resolved, so villagers
along the Sesan River organized together to form the “Sesan
Protection Network” (SPN) in order to more effectively notify
the outside world of their concerns and their plight (The Sesan
Working Group dissolved upon establishment of SPN). After
that, people living not only along the Sesan, but also along
the Srepok and Sekong Rivers began participating in SPN,
and in 2005, it formed as an NGO of organized villagers in
the region and they called themselves “Sesan-Srepok-Sekong Protests by villagers against the dam
construction.
Rivers Protection Network” (3SPN).
Even after becoming 3SPN, the villagers’ demands are still consistent. Their core demands arethat the rivers’ natural flow be restored, that no more dams be built without consent of villagers,
and that compensation be made to villagers who suffered damage to their livelihood, crops, andlivestock. Villagers have expanded their network, and have continued making their demands andconcerns known to various other stakeholders. At the Northeast Cambodia Fishers Forum in 2005,
approximately 180 fishers from Cambodia, Thailand and Laos gathered, in addition to officials fromthe Cambodian central and local governments, domestic and international NGOs. At this forum, it
was reconfirmed that dam construction was a threat to the culture, agriculture and fishing of people
who depend on the river and its ecosystem, and discussions were held about the challenges and efforts
needed to protect them. The 3SPN villagers send a letter to Prime Minister Hun Sen demanding
solutions to the problems, and a demand for the disclosure of the post factum EIA on the Sesan andSrepok was sent to Vietnam Electricity (EVN) and the Vietnam National Mekong Committee. They
also made it into the public hearing on the Srepok post factum EIA, and made an appeal before
the approximately 150 participants, who were representatives of the ministries of the Vietnameseand Cambodian governments, governors, villagers, and NGOs. They raised their concerns about
the impacts of dam construction on the Srepok River, called for the temporary halt in construction,and demanded compensation. They also demanded an end to funding of EIAs that presume dam<2-4>3<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

construction and/or reject local participation.
Also, to collect evidence to back up their concerns and opinions, they did an impact survey, and arethus strengthening their own knowledge base. They are also getting on to radio programs to explain
their situations, holding demonstrations against dam construction, and thus making their concerns
about development projects known to a broader audience.

To Address Cross-Border Environmental Issues
It appears that the villagers’ activities are leading to a widening recognition of the transboundary
impacts of development. Still, in spite of continuously raising their concerns, the villagers have yet
to be compensated for damages from the Yali Falls Dam and mitigation measures have not been
implemented. And dam construction on the 3S Rivers continues.
In order to mitigate transboundary environmental impacts, the following improvements need to be
made:1) Governance of the two committees working for the joint management of the Mekong River—namely the MRC and the Cambodia-Vietnam Joint Committee for the Management of the
Sesan River—must be strengthened;
2) Affected people in downstream Cambodia must be allowed to participate in decision making
for development projects;
3) Especially in terms of local participation, all people who are involved in dam developmentof the 3S Rivers must recognize downstream affected people in Cambodia as projectstakeholders, provide information and hold consultations prior to final decisions to implement
projects, and listen to opinions of affected people when taking the environment into
consideration;4) Aid agencies and other funders should not finance projects for which local participation,accountability, and appropriate social and environmental consideration cannot be confirmed;
5) The need to include transboundary issues into EIAs is clear from surveys and reports done todate, and EIAs should be disclosed to all stakeholders in languages they understand; and
6) Affected people downstream in Cambodia must be compensated for the cumulativeenvironmental impacts of existing dams and those currently under construction. They havebeen raising their concerns for years.
References
3S Rivers Protection Network (3SPN). Community Demands.
http://www.3spn.org/about-3s-region/community-demands/ (Last accessed on October 24, 2012)
Fisheries Office and Non-Timber Forest Products Project (NTFP). 2000.
A Study of Downstream Impacts of the Yali Falls Dam in the Sesan River Basin in Ratanakiri Province, Northeast Cambodia.
Ratanakiri, Cambodia: Cambodia Fisheries Office.
Halcrow and Partners. 1999. Sekong-Se San and Nam Theun River Basins Hydropower Development Study, Final Report.
Manila, the Philippines: Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Sugita Rena. 2008. Voices from the Waters: Villagers’ Lives and Livelihoods Threatened by Hydropower Development.
Tokyo, Japan: Mekong Watch (in Japanese)
http://www.mekongwatch.org/PDF/watervoice_full.pdf
SWECO, Groner. 2006a. Environmental Impact Assessment on the Cambodian Part of the Sesan River due to Hydropower Developmentin Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: EVN.
SWECO, Groner. 2006b. Environmental Impact Assessment on the Cambodian Side of the Srepok River due to Hydropower
Development in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: EVN.

Fumiko Takahashi<2-4>4<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-5. Rapidly Advancing Mekong Tributary Development andits Environmental and Social Impacts:
The Case of the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project in Laos
Hydropower Development on the Tributaries Threatening
Environment of the Mekong
Experts say that 70% of fish inhabiting the Mekong River are migratory, coming and going with theseasons between the Mekong and its tributaries. Science has yet to elucidate many of the details related
to the ecology of Mekong River fish, such as their migration and spawning patterns1. The current
plans to build the Xayaburi Dam and the Don Sahong Dam, and their anticipated environmental andsocial impacts have triggered an international debate. Of course, if a dam is built on the mainstream,
then certainly the migration of fish will be obstructed, changes in water volume will engender
environmental impacts, and the resulting effects will have an immeasurable impact on the lives ofpeople who depend on the natural resources of the river and its tributaries2. Even if further dam
construction on the mainstream of the Mekong River were prevented, continued dam development on
the tributaries would ultimately block their flow, inevitably leading to a dramatic decrease in MekongRiver aquatic life. Dam construction on the Mekong’s mainstream is of course an extremely important
issue. The environmental and social impacts of development and dam building on the tributaries,
however, should also be reconsidered and efforts need to be made to avoid impacts from new projects.
As an aside, the attention being focused on the mainstream of the Mekong has led to development on
the tributaries being pushed ahead at a fevered pitch, imperiling both the fish ecology of the MekongRiver and its tributaries, as well as the livelihoods of people who depend on them.

Accelerated Hydropower Development in Laos
Of the amount of water that flows into the South China
Sea from the Vietnam Mekong Delta, Laos accounts
for the largest volume, some 35% of the total3. The Laogovernment has been striving to harness the massivehydro resources and forge them into the so-called "batteryof Southeast Asia" to supply power to neighboring
countries. According to the Lao government-issued
power development plan (August 2012), of 86 projects in The Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Dam.
operation, the nation’s power generation business includes
14 plants currently in operation and 12 under construction4. Of these, apart from the Hongsa lignite coalfired power station slated to begin operation in 2015, all of the projects listed are hydropower projects.
What provided the initial impetus to hydropower development in Laos was the Nam Theun 2
Hydropower Project backed by both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Of
the Lao hydropower projects in the plan cited above, only 10 were already in motion prior to the Nam
Theun 2 project launch in 2005, which triggered a spate of contracts for dam projects and feasibility
study-related memorandums. Despite the World Bank and ADB support for the Nam Theun 2 project,which was billed as a “model of sustainable development,” currently many environmental andsocial impacts have emerged. Here we will examine the environmental and social impacts of dam
development through the lens of the Nam Theun 2 project.
<2-5>1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Environmental and Social Impacts of the Nam Theun 2 Dam,a “Model of Sustainable Development”
The Nam Theun 2 dam was built in Khammouane Province in central Laos with the principal aim of
securing foreign currency through the sale of power to neighboring Thailand (See the map below).
The project called for the damming of the Nam Theun River, a tributary of the Mekong River, with a
48-meter-tall dam. The dam resulted in the submerging of an area of 450 km2, equivalent to two-thirds
the area of Singapore, and the relocation of 6,300 residents. In line with the primary objective of the
project, 1,000 megawatts (MW) of the 1,075 MW output is being sold to Thailand to bring in foreign
currency.

Map: The Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project (Source: International Rivers)

The project is a private-sector-led initiative implemented by an independent power producer andfinanced using the BOOT (build–own–operate–transfer) method. The project is the largest public
works project ever in Laos, costing approximately USD 1.45 billion.
The massive environmental and social impacts associated with the project fueled international debate
for more than a decade before the World Bank and ADB decided to back it in 2005. Construction
began in earnest in June of the same year. In April 2008, the relocation of residents was completed andwater began to be fed into the reservoir. On March 15, 2010, the dam began operating at full capacityand exporting power to Thailand.
As a result, a 450 km2 area was flooded and the valuable Nakai Plateau ecosystem, also known as theGalapagos of the East, has been seriously affected. At the same time, livelihood prospects have yet tomaterialize for the 6,300 displaced individuals. In addition, after the water is used to generate power<2-5>2<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

it is fed into the Xe Bang Fai River and its tributaries, and an estimated 120,000 to 130,000 people arebeing affected by inundation of agricultural fields, catastrophic fishing industry damage, and increases
in the incidences of flooding.

Broken Promises of the Nam Theun 2
Several surveys were conducted in conjunction with theWorld Bank and ADB support of this project in lightof concerns about potential serious environmental andsocial impacts resulting. Consequently, wide-ranging andelaborate plans were formulated to circumvent or mitigate
potential negative impacts. However, the reservoir was
filled and dam operation began even though the project’s
social development plan, the concession agreement with Flooded riverbank garden along the Xebang Fai
the Lao government, and conditions outlined in World River.
Bank environmental and social safeguard policies had not been fulfilled. The environmental and social
impacts that observers anticipated have arisen. Some of the most salient problems are briefly described
below.
First, the reservoir area was flooded before the vegetation at the reservoirsite was completely cleared. Failing to suitably clear the vegetation has
damaged the water quality of the reservoir and the downstream Xe Bang
Fai River, which may be a cause of emerging health problems.
Second, following the start of commercial operations, there have been
instances in many villages along the Xe Bang Fai River of residents
reporting skin problems after bathing or fishing in the river. Reasons
why skin afflictions among river users occurred immediately after thedam started operation include a failure to notify local residents about the
decline in river water quality, and the fact that many people have no choice
but to use Xe Bang Fai River water for their household and daily needs
because wells set up by the Nam Theun 2 Power Company (NTPC) break
down and the well-water quality is poor.

A two-year old girl sufferinga rash after bathing in the Xe
Bang Fai River, into which the
Nam Theun 2 Dam discharges
its reservoir water.

Third, despite the World Bank safeguard policy stating that the expropriation of land and related assets
should take place only after compensation has been paid, it was not until two years after relocation
was completed that compensation for fields and fruit orchards began. Relocated residents have been
put into a very difficult situation. They may not be able to file complaints in cases that they do notreceive fair compensation in accordance with the stated policy because all their assets that would havebeen evidence to back up their claims have already been submerged.
In this way, despite billing this project as a “model for sustainable development” by conducting
enormous environmental and social impact assessments and designing detailed plans to prevent andmitigate negative impacts, in practice, promises and requirements related to environmental and social
safeguards have gone unfulfilled. Instead, commercial operation of the dam and economic profits havebeen prioritized.
<2-5>3<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Preventing Environmental and Social Impacts of Hydropower Development
If the World Bank seeks to prevent and mitigate further environmental and social impacts of the Nam
Theun 2 Hydropower Project, then it is incumbent upon it to implement the following improvements.
First, it must ensure compliance with safeguard policies. NTPC, as the corporation operating thebusiness, has prioritized the pursuit of profits and failed to completely fulfill its obligations interms of safeguard policies. The World Bank and ADB, as supporters of this project, clearly have a
responsibility to ensure the company's compliance with these safeguard policies.
Second, a monitoring mechanism to gauge the long-term effects of the project is required. Under
the initial plan, a livelihood-restoration program by the NTPC is to conclude in 2014, after which
the responsibility for the program is to shift to the Lao government. However, whether the Laogovernment can adequately respond to affected people and the remaining issues is a big questionand highly problematic. Monitoring long-term impacts and mitigating these impacts will ostensibly
be major challenges. Furthermore, as a project with international backing, the project merits a longterm survey of how a dam constructed on a tributary impacts the basin ecosystem as a whole. These
projects should be used to contribute new information to the store of knowledge on the cumulative
effects of dams on the Mekong River ecosystem.
Third, the disclosure of information on environmental and social impacts is called for. In spite ofrequests from non-government organizations (NGOs), the companies conducting activities havenot disclosed important information, including standard-of-living surveys, surveys on reservoir anddownstream water quality, and monitoring reports of activities on livelihood recovery downstream.
Knowing that NTPC-implemented surveys are problematic in that they are not disclosed, not only
surveys by World Bank experts, but project monitoring conducted by NGOs should also be accepted.
To monitor these projects more effectively, information pertaining to environmental and social impacts
needs to be made available to the general public.
Fourth, the World Bank should call on the Lao government to comply with the environmental
policies the Bank supported when the Nam Theun 2 project plans were being formulated. In laying
the groundwork for the project, both the World Bank and the ADB contributed to the formulation
and revision of a number of environmental policies adopted by Laos. The fact that Laos preparedand organized these environmental policies is commendable. However, Laos has placed priority on
economic growth to the detriment of environmental and social considerations in this development
project, and has not actively sought to improve environmental policy. When it comes to the actual
operations, there are a number of issues that should be pointed out. The World Bank and ADB
added momentum to hydropower projects in Laos by throwing their weight behind the Nam Theun
2 project. This then led to a subsequent spate of dam development projects with environmental andsocial components being insufficiently considered. As such, hydropower project operators cannot be
expected to formulate and promote measures to prevent and mitigate environmental impacts on theirown. Moreover, the current situation is one in which the Lao government is lacking in management
capacity and accountability. In light of this, donors such as the World Bank and ADB—who havesupported the improvement of environmental policy in Laos and promoted hydropower development
by backing construction of the Nam Theun 2 Dam—have a responsibility to urge the Lao government
to thoroughly comply with environmental policy and call on the government for greater transparency<2-5>4<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

and accountability in development projects.
Without overcoming these problems, this project cannot in good conscience be called a “model forsustainable development” and should not be used to foist dam development on Laos or other countries.
References
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2004. Summary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment: Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project in
Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Manila, the Philippines: ADB.
Goldman, M. 2005. Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles of Social Justice in the Age of Globalization.
New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Imhof, Aviva, and Shannon Lawrence. 2005. An Analysis of Nam Theun 2 Compliance with World Commission on Dams Strategic
Priorities. Berkeley, California: International Rivers Network (IRN).
http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/an-analysis-of-nam-theun-2-compliance-with-world-commission-on-damsguidelines-4124
Higashi, Satomi. 2005. Why Did the Japanese Government Support the Nam Theun 2 Dam Project? A Report on the Ministry of Financeand NGO Regular Consultation Special Session. Forum Mekong Vol. 7 No. 1, 1-13 (in Japanese)
http://www.mekongwatch.org/PDF/FM7_1.pdf
Higashi, Satomi. 2010. New Poverty Proliferation in the Guise of Poverty Eradication: The Laos Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project.
Alternatives November/December 2010 (in Japanese)
Kiguchi, Yuka. 2008. The Hoo Sahong Fish Corridor and People’s Lives: Concerns on the Environment and Social Impact of the Don
Sahong Dam. Forum Mekong Vol. 9 No.1, 16-19 (in Japanese)
http://www.mekongwatch.org/PDF/FM9_1.pdf
Minutes of the Ministry of Finance and NGO Regular Consultation Special Session (April 12, 2005) (in Japanese)
http://www.jacses.org/sdap/mof/gijiroku/mof28.pdf.pdf
Nam Theun 2 Power Company (NTPC). http://www.namtheun2.com
Nam Theun 2 Power Company (NTPC). 2005. Social Development Plan. Vientiane, Lao PDR: NTPC.
http://www.namtheun2.com/reports/111.html
Shoemaker, Bruce, Ian G. Baird, and Monsiri Baird. 2002. The People and Their River: A Survey of River-Based Livelihoods in the Xe
Bang Fai River Basin in Central Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Canada/Lao PDR Fund for Local Initiatives.
World Bank. Nam Theun 2.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/LAOPRDEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21109109~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:293684,00.html
World Bank. Nam Theun 2 Blogs. http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/category/tags/nt2

Mekong Watch

1. See BP 1-3 Fish Diversity in the Mekong Basin and BP 1-4 The Mekong River: The World’s Largest Freshwater Fishery.
2. See BP 2-1 The Mekong River Mainstream: Looking back on Hydropower Dam Development andBP 2-2 Mainstream Dam Development: Construction of the Xayaburi Dam Forges Ahead without Agreement.
3. See BP 1-1 The Mekong River’s Natural Environment.
4. The plan includes plants with a 1-megawatt (MW) capacity or greater.

<2-5>
5

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-6. Forests Disappearing from Mekong Watershed Countries
Forests Support People’s Lives“The forest is my home. I cannot live without my home.” A farmer making his living in the mountainsof Laos said these words. Life in rural districts of countries of the Mekong River watershed is
supported even now by the natural resources nurtured by forests and rivers1.
About 70 million people depend directly on the ecosystem for food, water, livelihood and otherimportant services related to existence in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region (GMS), consisting of thefive countries of Laos, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, and two Chinese provinces, Yunnan
and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (WWF 2013: 5).
People engaging in agriculture who depend on the natural environment supplement their unpredictable
food production with forest products including bamboo shoots, mushrooms and wild animals2. The
wood they use to build their dwellings and the thatch for their roofs are also obtained from the forests.
In addition, they have inherited knowledge of a variety of medicinal plants used to treat diseases.
Moreover, the respect paid to forest spirits in this region of China’s Yunnan Province, Laos,northeastern Thailand, and northwestern Vietnam, and the various traditional restrictions on forest
misuse have deterred logging or excessive use of forest resources3.
Minority peoples practice shifting cultivation in the hilly areas of the Mekong basin countries. They
cut vegetation and set it ablaze to clear fields, cultivate crops in those fields for a short time, and leave
the fields fallow after harvest to let the vegetation recover, after which they are used once again forgrowing crops. To the peoples practicing shifting agriculture, the forest and farmland are one and thesame. In the secondary forests created by shifting agriculture, people can gather a variety of forest
products. Some of these forest products only grow in these secondary forests, so people and forests
have coexisted, providing mutual support, with the forests providing for people’s livelihoods, andpeople ensuring the forests’ biodiversity4.
As the Laotian farmer quoted at the beginning of this report said, the people making their living in
the farming areas of the Mekong watershed could not exist without the forests. The forests of thisregion, however, have been subject to rapid degradation during the past half century, threatening thesepeople’s existence.

Forest Losses in the Mekong Watershed
According to statistics compiled in 2010 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), there are 90 million hectares of forests currently remaining in these five countries, of which
13% is virgin forest, 10% is plantations and the remainder has been degraded but is natural forest thatwill regenerate naturally if left as it is (Figure 1). The forest cover ratio of each country is 57% for
Cambodia, 68% for Laos, 48% for Burma, 37% for Thailand and 44% for Vietnam.
When broken down into forest types, Cambodia and Vietnam in particular have little virgin forest(322,000 ha in Cambodia, 80,000 ha in Vietnam), and compared to other countries, Thailand and<2-6>1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Vietnam have large areas occupied by plantations.

Planted forest
Naturally regenerated forest

m
tn
a

% of
land area

Vi
e

Th

ai

la

nd

a

s
La
o

Bu
rm

Ca
m

bo

di
a

Primary forest

Based on FAO (2010)5

In 1973, the five countries of Laos, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam combined had a total
forested area of 140 million hectares (accounting for 73% of the total area of the five countries), but
by 2009 this shrunk to about 100 million hectares (51% of the total area). This means that 31% of theforests had been lost (WWF 2013: 23). On an individual-country basis, since 1980 Cambodia has lost
22% of its forests compared to 1973, Laos and Burma have lost 24%, and Thailand and Vietnam havelost 43%. If unsustainable growth continues to degrade forests at this rate, there are warnings that by
2030, a further loss of about 34% of the forests could occur in the GMS region (not including China)(WWF 2013: 7).

Causes of Deforestation
Several factors have contributed to deforestation in the Mekong region. One is the long continued
wars and internal strife. During the Vietnam-American War, the American military used napalm
bombs and defoliants sprays which destroyed large areas of tropical rain forest. In skirmishes between
communist guerillas and Thai government forces in the central hilly region from the late 1970s to theearly 1980s, large areas of forest were burnt in attacks by the government forces (Kashio).
A second factor has been the promotion of agricultural development policies involving conversionof forest to farmland. Development of industrial rubber and eucalyptus plantations and farms forcultivating cash crops such as cassava and sugar cane have resulted in progressive conversion offorests into farmland. In Thailand and Vietnam, shrimp breeding operations have resulted in adevastating loss of mangrove forests. British NGO Global Witness has pointed out the problem of land
resource exploitation in Cambodia and Vietnam for Vietnamese-funded rubber plantations. According
to their report (Global Witness 2013), large Vietnamese corporations have close connections with thecorrupt governmental and financial elite of those countries that allow them to lease vast land areas forrubber plantations, with dire effects on local society and the environment. The report also indicatedthat Deutsche Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a global banking group, havesupported such activities by investing in these rubber plantation companies without considering<2-6>2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

A fodder maize field. Mono-cropping has caused
soil degradation and erosion (Oudomxay Province,
northern Laos).

Land cleared for a rubber plantation (Attapeu Province,
southern Laos).

the environment or human rights. The flow of foreign capital to such companies is also a cause of
deforestation in this region.
A third factor is development of large-scale infrastructure such as mines and hydropower dams. The
Nam Theun 2 hydropower project6 in Laos, being constructed with aid from the World Bank andAsian Development Bank (ADB), has flooded 450 km2 of forest so biologically diverse that it is also
known as “the Galapagos of the East.” In 1993 to 1994, prior to this dam’s construction, a logging
company affiliated with the Lao military cut down valuable trees such as Merkus pines and transported
them to the neighboring countries of Thailand and Vietnam. Also, the Nam Theun 2 Power Company(NTPC), which executed the project, inundated the reservoir without sufficiently removing biomass,violating its own environmental and social policies. Dead trees can still be seen standing in the waterof the reservoir. Even now, according to official government statistics, about 80% of the annual wood
production in Laos comes from logging on land being developed for hydropower dams or mines.

Logs cut and taken from the planned site of the Nam
Theum 2 Dam in Laos (1996).

The Nam Theum 2 Dam reservoir. Poor plant removal
left many dead trees standing（2009).

A fourth factor is the serious problem of illegal logging. Although there is no precise data in the Laoscase, the amount of logging that is officially sanctioned is about half the amount estimated fromthe actual number of currently existing sawmills and their rates of operation, indicating rampant
illegal logging. Since 2001, the Lao government has approved exports only of finished products withregard to wood from natural forests, but the domestic sawmill industry is not as competitive as that
<2-6>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

in Vietnam, so exports of raw timber and primary processed products to Vietnam currently continue(Fujita 2012).

Large logs being trucked from southern Laos to Vietnam.
The export of logs or unprocessed wood is prohibited, but
illegal logging and trading have continued unabated.

Shifting cultivation has been traditionally practiced in
the mountains of the Mekong basin. Due to increasing
population pressures and development projects, however,farmlands are becoming scarcer in both relative andabsolute terms, and cases of destructive land use are
increasing.

In addition, the common perception of shifting cultivation, also called slash-and-burn, is that it is a
cause of deforestation. It is a sustainable farming method, however, if fallow periods sufficient forvegetation to recover are maintained after harvest. But due to increases in population, infrastructuredevelopment projects, and the expansion of industrial plantations and cash crop cultivation, the landarea that can be used for shifting cultivation is decreasing. As this has happened, fallow periods haveshortened to the point that forests that have not sufficiently regenerated are being cultivated. Farmlandthat villagers once used in common is being privatized and enclosed for industrial plantations bycompanies or individuals, also causing the shifting cultivation cycle to be shortened, and in somecases putting increased pressure on the land (Barney 2010). In Laos, the government has promoted
policies for relocating minority villagers, concentrating them along roadways, resulting in a relative
shortage of farmland for them. The outcome of this has been also shorter fallow periods in shifting
cultivation. Far from improving the situation, it has brought about destructive land use practices(Higashi 2010). When considering problems of deforestation due to shifting cultivation, it is necessary
to look at background factors. As fallow periods are shortened like this, the ability of nature to recoveris exceeded, in many cases leading to soil degradation.

Proposal: Prevent Loss and Deterioration of Forests
Reforestation projects are what usually comes to mind when it comes to measures to prevent
forest degradation. Much of the reforestation in the Mekong basin, however, creates plantations ofmonocultures such as eucalyptus or oil palm which are unsuitable as habitat for wild animals. Fromthe viewpoint of preserving biodiversity and ensuring food security for the region’s inhabitants, theseplantations have a large negative impact. In some cases, forests where local people were engaged in
shifting cultivation or gathering forest products were deemed “degraded forests” and then enclosed
and replaced with monoculture plantation projects. It should go without saying that when conducting
plantation projects, consideration must be given not only to the type of soil and species of trees toplant, but it is also necessary to consider other environmental and social aspects.

<2-6>
4

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Sustainable forest preservation cannot be achieved without the understanding and participationof local people who make their living in the forest and utilize its resources. In reality, however, inthe countries of the Mekong basin, there is limited freedom for local communities to express theiropinions on their country’s policies or development projects, though the degree of suppression varies.
In Laos, for example, citizens who appealed to the National Assembly about problems with industrial
plantation projects by Vietnamese companies were detained. In addition to empowering local people
in regard to forest preservation, it is important for affected communities and civil society to be able toparticipate meaningfully in decision-making on forest preservation systems.
In addition to improving forestry systems in each country, in order to prevent the loss or degradationof forests, stronger enforcement of the existing legal system is needed. In Laos and Cambodia,
where illegal logging and destructive industrial plantation projects are rampant, laws to prevent thesealready exist to some degree. These laws are not being enforced properly, however, due to widespread
corruption and lack of oversight, and that is leading to forest degradation. International institutions
and civil society must closely monitor the situation and demand that necessary changes are reflected inpolicy. This is not easy, however, in countries with poor governance, where corruption prevails, public
servants engage in jobbery and self-preservation is paramount. The aforementioned report from Global
Witness shed light on the shady dealings of the rubber plantations run by Vietnamese companies withcozy relationships in the political and financial circles of Laos and Cambodia. The company, however,denies that the report reflects reality and the governments of both Laos and Cambodia are ignoring
the report. Logging concession fees are a means of raising money in Vietnam and Laos, and in manycases the military plays a major role in logging (Matsumoto and Hirsch 2003: 135-137). In such cases,
external monitoring and filing complaints become difficult.
Under such conditions, one possibility for stopping deforestation might be to cut off the flow offunding for corporate activities that exacerbate deforestation. Of course, improvements in thegovernance of each country are also required, but at the same time, oversight is needed so thatinvestment funds from international institutions or other overseas sources do not flow into economic
activities that lead to deforestation.

<2-6>
5

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>
References
Barney, K. 2010. Notes to a Research Visit to Ban Pak Veng, Hinboun District, Lao PDR, with Special Reference to the Theun Hinboun
Hydropower Company Project and the Oji Lao Plantation Forestry Company Ltd., Project. Canberra, Australia: Australian National
University.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Fujita, S. 2012. Forest Protection in Laos and Various Measures for Sustainable Resource Utilization.
Shinrin Gijutsu (Forest Technology) No. 848 (November) 34-38 (in Japanese).
Global Witness. 2013. Rubber Barons. London, UK: Global Witness.
Higashi, Satomi. 2010. Forest Policies Leading to Deforestation and the Role of “Outsiders”. In M.
Ichikawa, D. Naito and F. Ubukata (eds.) The People of Tropical Asia and Forest Management Systems:
The Case for Governance on the Scene. Tokyo: Japan: Jimbunshoin 66-84 (in Japanese).
Kashio, M. Causes of Deforestation in Southeast Asia and Countermeasures Promoted. Global Environmental Forum (in Japanese).
http://www.gef.or.jp/forest/kashio.htm#BURN (Last accessed in July 2013)
Matsumoto, Satoru, and Phillip Hirsch. 2003. Forest Loss in Mekong Watershed Countries and its Causes. In M. Inoue (ed.)
Forest Loss and Conservation in Asia. Tokyo, Japan: Chuo Hoki 132-148 (in Japanese).
Mekong Watch. The Nam Theun 2 Dam (in Japanese).
http://www.mekongwatch.org/env/laos/nt2/ (Last accessed in July 2013)
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Greater Mekong Programme. 2013.
Ecosystem in the Greater Mekong: Past Trends, Current Status, and Possible Futures.

Mekong Watch

1. Mekong Watch compiled a video documentary in 2013 titled Transition: Changing Forests Changes Lives in Laos (http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=ac9OIxLWm2I). This video introduces the connections between the forest and Lao peoples’ livelihoods andculture and the effects that policies and economic activities aimed at economic development in recent years are having on the richbiodiversity of the ecosystem and lifestyles respecting the forest.
2. For more details, see BP 1-2 Non-Timber Forest Product Use and Food Security: The Lao Case.
3. See BP 3-1 Spirit Worship and Forest Conservation in the Mekong Basin.
4. See BP 2-9 Shifting Cultivation and Upland Life in Northern Laos.
5. FAO defines “forest” as “land exceeding 0.5 ha in area, on which the crowns of the trees that have reached at least 5 m height covera ratio of 10% or more of the area” (FAO 2010). Countries define “forest” variously, so figures announced by each government on
forest area and forest coverage may differ. For example, the Laotian government defines “forest” as land with a crown coverage ratioof 20% or more, and the forest coverage ratio announced by the Laotian government for 2010 was 40.3%.
6. See BP 2-5 Rapidly Advancing Mekong Tributary Development and its Environmental and Social Impacts: The Case of the
Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project in Laos.

<2-6>
6

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-7. Livelihoods and Environmental Issues inVietnam’s Mekong River Delta
1

Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta
The Mekong River Delta is a huge tropical wetland that plays an important role in conserving thebiodiversity of the Mekong River, an international waterway. The Mekong Delta is spread out over an
area of 36,000 km2. Of this, two million hectares (20,000 km2) are farmland, the main crop being rice,
the staple food of Southeast Asia.
The people of the Mekong Delta live on land lying less than 10 m above sea level, making this an area
extremely vulnerable to climate change. If the sea level should rise one meter, 25% of the current landarea of the Mekong Delta, home to 3.5 to 5 million people, would be lost.
The delta plays a crucial role in Vietnam’s domestic food supply and exports, supplying 53% of riceand other grain production, 80% of the fish harvest, and 75% of fruit production.
The delta area consists of 12 districts, with Can Tho as the central city. The present population of thedelta is 18.6 million, 26% of the total population of Vietnam. Historically, the people of the delta havemade their livelihoods by settling densely along the banks of the river and the canals that branch off
on either side. Separating the socioeconomic development of the delta from the water resource regime
is totally inconceivable.

Water Resource Issues in the Mekong Delta
There are five limiting factors constraining agricultural production in the delta. Two of these, floods
and the shortage of fresh water, concern water quantity. The remaining three factors of seawater
intrusion, soil acidity and water pollution, concern water quality. In addition, water issues thattranscend international borders, sea level rise due to climate change, and dam construction on the
Mekong River mainstream are looming on the horizon as disturbing issues for the future. Each issue isdiscussed below.
Flooding: Floods occur in the Mekong Delta from August to October each year. The average dischargeof the Mekong River in the wet season is about 39,000 m3/sec. Roughly 1.2 to 1.9 million hectares of<2-7>1<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

the delta are inundated during this season, making agriculture impossible in the flooded areas. In thedry season, however, the average discharge of the Mekong River falls to between 1,700 and 2,500 m3/
sec. Moreover, not only does the water table drop two to three meters in the dry season, there is hardly
any rainfall in the area during this period.
Seawater intrusion: Seawater (salinity) intrusion is caused by seawater flowing inland wheninsufficient freshwater is flowing through the estuaries. Sea tides also affect the delta’s water regime.
The mechanism of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta is very complex. At present, 1.7 to 2.1
million hectares (roughly 40 to 50% of the Mekong Delta) are affected by seawater intrusion.
Soil acidity: Extensive areas of the Long Xuyen Quadrangle, the Plain of Reeds, and other areas
have surface soil acidity. The total area of this land amounts to about 1.6 million hectares, 40% of thetotal area of the Mekong Delta. It is known that artificial drainage of acid surface soil resulted in theacidification and accumulation of Fe2+ (iron ion) and Al3+ (sulfide ion) in canal water. Highly acidic
water may be harmful to the health of humans, animals and plants.
Water pollution: Rapid population growth and the expansion of residential areas along the river banks
are having adverse impacts on the water environment. Water quality parameters along the river andcanals in the Mekong Delta are generally related to the use of fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture,nutrient-rich effluents from aquaculture and animal husbandry, and wastewater from industrial plants.
Climate change and sea level rise: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
4th Assessment Report, in the last ten years climate change has become one of the world’s mostserious socioeconomic and environmental problems, and the Mekong basin is considered to be one of
the areas of the world most acutely affected by climate change and sea level rise (IPCC 2007). A study
on the future impacts of climate change on the Mekong delta by Can Tho University and Thailand’s
Chulalongkorn University have shown that the Mekong basin will experience severe impacts related
to floods from the upper reaches and seawater intrusion in the lower reaches.
Transboundary environmental problems caused by the Mekong River mainstream dams: The Mekong
region is now facing a new issue. China already has six operational dams2 and another two dams3
planned on the Mekong River. Further downstream in the Mekong, 12 dams are also now in theplanning and construction stages4; eight in Laos5, two on the Thai-Lao border6 and two in Cambodia7.
If these Mekong River mainstream hydropower dams are completed, thousands of people will lose
their homes and will be relocated, the flow of the river will be altered, sediment loss and erosion will
increase, river navigation will be disrupted, biodiversity will be reduced, fish resources will be lost,and further potential negative impacts, as yet unknown, are likely to occur.
Of all the dam plans for the Mekong mainstream, the Xayaburi Dam is the farthest advanced. If
constructed, this will be the first hydropower dam on the lower reaches of the mainstream of the
Mekong River. The governments of Cambodia and Vietnam, located downstream from the dam, havebeen requesting that the government of Laos, which is constructing the dam, carry out cross-borderenvironmental impact assessments. The government of Laos, however, has not answered this request.
If the mainstream of the Mekong is blocked, the flow of the river will be altered and the approximately<2-7>2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

30 million people living in the lower Mekong River basin may be seriously affected by adverse
transboundary impacts.

Concluding Remarks
The impacts of climate change and transboundary dam development will bring about both quantitativeand qualitative changes in the flow of the Mekong River, threaten the livelihoods of the people andfood production, and further exacerbate the environmental issues we are now facing.
The Mekong delta’s economy depends upon natural resources. People’s food security is supported byan economy that has rice production at its center, and is made possible by aquaculture, agriculture, andservices that are tied to the Mekong River. These are all crucially affected by water, land and climate.
Sustainable development in the Mekong Delta is founded upon a stable social system built upon thepremise of secure access to water, which is the basis of food security. Collapse of this system willundoubtedly result in severe impacts on social stability and Vietnam’s economic growth. Cooperation
among scientists, policymakers, government agencies, NGOs and local people will be necessary tobuild a strategy and action plan to resolve these enormously complex problems.
References
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1

Rported by Le Anh Tuan (Can Tho University) and Summarized by Mekong Watch

1. This article is a summary of a report given by Dr. Le Anh Tuan from the Research Institute for Climate Change (DRAGON InstituteMekong), College of Environment and Natural Resources, Can Tho University (Vietnam) at the international workshop, Establishingan East-Asian Civil Society Network to Discuss Sustainable Natural Resources Management in the Mekong River Basin sponsored by
Mekong Watch on December 12, 2012 in Tokyo, Japan.
2. Gongguoqiao, Xiaowan, Manwan, Dachaoshan, Nuozhadu, and Jinghong Dams
3. Ganlanba and Mengsong Dams
4. The number and status of the dams have been updated by Mekong Watch.
5. Pak Beng, Luang Prabang, Xayaburi (under construction), Pak Lay, Sanakham, Lat Sua, Thakho, and Don Sahong Dams
6. Pak Chom and Ban Koum Dams
7. Stung Treng and Sambor Dams

<2-7>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-8. Riverside Agriculture in the Mekong Basin: An Uncertain
Future for Environmentally Friendly AgricultureRiverside Agriculture in the Mekong Region
Due to the impacts of monsoons in the Mekong basin, water levels of both the mainstream and thetributaries change drastically between rainy and dry seasons. During the dry season, farming expands
to riverbanks (including sandbars and islets) that are exposed with dropping water levels. Beans, leafy
vegetables, watermelon, chilies, various herbs, and many other varieties of vegetables are grown. In
Blake (2004), it is reported that in a survey of 10 villages along the Mun and Songkram Rivers innortheast Thailand, a total of 47 kinds of herbs and vegetables were harvested. People cultivate thesegardens primarily for their own consumption. Produce is bartered or sold cheaply within the samevillage, and other harvested produce that exceeds a certain quantity is sold in local markets.
Gardening on riverbanks begins in November when the river water levels drop. People plant crops
suitable to the water level. Plants that require longer growth periods are planted in the upper areas of
the bank, while morning glory and other water-loving plants with shorter growth periods are planted
in lower areas. Around May when the rains begin, harvesting is completed, and the once-riverbank
gardens are gradually submerged.

Rainy season.

Dry season.

Benefits of Riverbank Gardens
In the rainy season, soil containing organic materials flows downstream and is deposited on thesurface layers of submerged riverbank inclines. In this way, the riverbank soil is renewed during
the rainy season. Therefore, even with very little use of fertilizer, a certain quantity of crops can becultivated, and there is little risk of replant failure. Also, because riverbanks are submerged in the wet
season, weeds do not grow, and in the dry season, there is the benefit of having easy access to water.
In addition, working in the riverbank gardens is easily combined with other daily tasks like washingclothes, bathing, and fishing. Most of these activities are done by women.
Such riverbank gardens have traditionally been subject to customary rights of usage and inheritance.
If a household with usage rights decides not to exercise that right, it can lend the land to anotherhousehold, and in some cases the right is sold (Blake 2004). In Savannakhet Province of Laos, there
are also examples where village officials listen to the wishes of each household each year, and thendiscussions are held on how to distribute agricultural land.
<2-8>1<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Not only does riverside farming in the Mekong River Basin require little fertilizer and labor, its
effective use of nature’s cycles places very little burden on the environment.

Cash Crop Production by Local Communities
In places where wide sandbars emerge, such as in northeastern Thai provinces and in Bokeo Provinceof northern Laos, not only is subsistence farming done, but cash crops such as corn are also cultivated.
Corn grown and harvested in Laos is sold in Thailand, and it is an important source of cash income forcommunities.
There are also examples where traditional production activities have led to new businesses. In
Savannakhet Province of central Laos, due to the merging of multiple rivers on the upper Xe Ban
Heing River, changes in water levels in the central basin in Champhone District are especially drastic.
In this river, cotton and indigo have traditionally been widely grown in the dry season. Before, people
used clothing dyed in this indigo for their work clothes, but with the mass introduction of cheap
industrially produced clothing, this custom began to decline. However, natural dyes and cotton that is
free of agricultural chemicals are again becoming appreciated in other countries, particularly in Japan,
and new products are being developed with training by foreign technicians. Since about 10 years ago,such products have been found in the Lao capital of Vientiane and have also been exported to Japan.
Handicraft production is increasing women’s income.

Disappearing Riverbank Farms
Riverbank farming places little burden on the environment, requires little investment from
communities, and is a valuable source of income, but the area available for farming has declined overthe past 20 years in various parts of the Mekong basin. One cause for this decline is dam construction.
Dams block the flow of water and create reservoirs. Therefore, even in dry season, water levels do notdrop upstream of these dams, making riverbank farming impossible.
There is also a phenomenon called “hungry water,” which causes severe erosion of downstream
riverbanks. Because currents in reservoirs are very slow, sand that was previously stirred up in theriver sinks when going through the reservoir. Thus, water flowing downstream of the dam does notcontain much sedimentation. When this “hungry water” flows downstream, it “eats up” sediments inlarge quantities, causing severe eroding of riverbanks.
Also, because many of the dams constructed in the Mekong basin are hydropower dams, unnatural
releases of water from reservoirs also causes much riverbank erosion both upstream and downstreamof the dams. For such various reasons, there is a decline in riverbanks available for farming both
upstream and downstream of rivers where dams have been constructed. Embankment reinforcement toprevent erosion is also contributing to the loss of agricultural land.

Reevaluating Riverbank Agriculture
In the past, people have not been compensated for loss of riverbank farms due to dam construction.
Use of this land was customarily recognized at the village level, but not formally recognized at thenational level. Communities, therefore, could not claim formal legal rights to use or own the land, anddevelopers have ignored this issue.

<2-8>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Such work only became widely recognized as a livelihood when its importance was emphasized byaffected people who unified in a movement against the Pak Mun Dam (construction of which began in1991), and when NGOs and communities in Laos and Thailand conducted surveys and reported theirfindings (e.g., AOP and SEARIN 2002, Shoemaker, Baird, and Monsiri 2001).
The loss of riverbank agriculture was also a topic of controversy prior to the construction of the
Nam Theun 2 Dam supported by the World Bank. In the case of the Nam Theun 2 Dam, water isdiverted into the Xe Bang Fai River, and riverbank farms along this river are supposed to receive
compensation. According to a Mekong Watch survey, however, it has become clear that suchcompensation has not actually been made (Mekong Watch 2010)1.
Riverbank farming is also an important factor in the Mekong River basin’s dry season landscape. In
Laos’s Luang Prabang, which is a World Heritage Site, many tourists come from around the world andtake photos of the riverbanks in the dry season. Not only is riverbank farming a part of the lives of
local communities, it is starting to be valued as a tourist resource.
In the context of development in the Mekong River basin, where hydropower is emphasized, apressing challenge is to get dam developers to correctly understand the value of riverbank farming,
including its economic value and contribution to food security.
References
Assembly of the Poor (AOP), and Southeast Asia Rivers Network (SEARIN). 2002.
Mae Mun: Kan Klap Ma Khong Khon Ha Pla (The Mun River: Return of People who Fish). Chiang Mai, Thailand: SEARIN (in Thai)
Blake, David. 2004. Riverbank Vegetable Cropping in the Mekong Basin:
A Sustainable Farming System Doomed to Oblivion? Watershed Vol. 10 No. 1 July-October 2004, 62-72.
Mekong Watch. 2010. Report on field visit to the Nam Theun 2 Dam (Nov 20-27, 2010). Tokyo. (in Japanese)
http://www.mekongwatch.org/PDF/nt2report2010.pdf
Shoemaker, B., I. G. Baird, and Monsiri Baird. 2001.
The People and Their River: A Survey of River-Based Means of Livelihood in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin in Central Lao PDR,
Vientiane, Lao PDR: Canada/Lao PDR Fund for Local Initiatives.

Yuka Kiguchi
1. See BP 2-5 Rapidly Advancing Mekong Tributary Development and its Environmental and Social Impacts: The Case of the
Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project in Laos.

<2-8>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

2-9. Shifting Cultivation and Upland Life in Northern Laos
Is Shifting Cultivation the Cause of Deforestation in Laos?
Shifting cultivation refers to a farming practice also known as “swidden” or “slash-and-burn
agriculture.” It refers to a short-term crop-growing method in which farmers clear a parcel of land by
cutting down trees and shrubbery and burning it. Normally, the land is left fallow after a harvest longenough for vegetation to recover. It is then cleared and used again to grow crops. Due to its association
with the clearing of land, felling of trees and use of fire, shifting cultivation has tended to be viewed
as a cause of deforestation. However, shifting cultivation can be a sustainable method of agriculture if
its harvest is followed by fallow periods that allow enough time for vegetation to sufficiently recover.
In recent years, however, implementation of land and forest policies not suited to traditional land use,
population pressures, and land concessions for cash crops1 has led to scarcity of agricultural land inboth relative and absolute terms. As a result, land often cannot be left fallow long enough for the forest
to recover, and destructive farming practices leading to land degradation and erosion is increasingly
common.

Shifting Cultivation: the Foundation of People’s Livelihoods
In Laos, 80% of the population lives in ruralvillages. According to statistics from the year
2000, 25% of the rural population, representing
150,000 households, is engaged in shifting
cultivation. When fallow land is included, thenmore than 80% of the land used for agriculture
is used for shifting cultivation (Roder 2001).
With the current shifting cultivation policy of
the Lao government, the number of households
engaging in this type of agriculture isdecreasing. Yet, shifting cultivation remains an Corn harvested from shifting-cultivation fields.
important means of producing food for many
people in Laos, particularly for minorities living in mountainous areas.
Apart from upland rice, shifting cultivation is used for an array of crops, such as corn, root vegetables
and beans. Post harvest, the land recovers as a secondary forest, from which bamboo shoots andmushrooms can be harvested, and the land serves as both a source of food and cash income,supporting people’s lives.
In northern Laos, upland farmers typically start their new year by selecting land for farming around
January. This task is primarily the responsibility of men. They look for land to farm that they think
will offer a good harvest, selecting a site based on past experience, the soil, and the age of the forest.
From February to March, they cut and clear the shrubbery, dry the land and vegetation, and then set
it alight to clear the land. Seeds are planted at the beginning of the rainy season. At this point, therice seeds best suited to the land, sunlight volume, and slope of the land are selected. The actual
planting and decisions about what is planted are primarily the responsibility of women. Plants such as<2-9>1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

corn, root vegetables and beans are planted. Until the harvest season, from September to December,weeding—the most labor-intensive phase of shifting cultivation—is carried out.
In addition, shifting cultivation is also deeply intertwined with the culture and beliefs of these people.
For example in the villages of the Kmhmu people in Oudomxay Province of northern Laos, a ritual
to pray to the spirits is conducted before selecting a farming location, clearing it, burning it, seeding
the rice and the harvest. Then again, after the harvest and before a new farming season, a festival tocelebrate the new year and pray for a plentiful harvest in the coming year is held.

The Wisdom of Shifting Cultivation
The planted glutinous rice is categorized into early-ripening (khao-dor), mid-season (khao-kaang) andlate-growing varieties (khao-pii) and their seeds have been handed down within families, generation
after generation. In one village in Oudomxay Province, at least three varieties of the early-ripening,
three varieties of the mid-season, and more than 12 varieties of the late-growing varieties have been
handed down over time. Planting rice with different or staggered harvest periods is a way to hedge
against the risks of poor harvests, such as weather fluctuations.
Rice seeds cannot be preserved for extended periods of time so each year all varieties of rice areplanted and the seeds saved for the next year. Villagers say that the rice that grows the best one year
will not necessarily be best for the next year’s agricultural land or climate. Without a variety of riceseeds they run the risk of not being able to handle the varying conditions each year brings. In this way,
the wealth of multiple generations of experience with shifting cultivation has taught people how tominimize risk and maximize the stability of crop production.

Biological Diversity of Secondary Forests
In the mountainous region of northern Laos,
shifting cultivation is conducted in cycles of fiveto ten years. Villagers clear secondary forests,
burn the land and till the fields. When the crops
have been harvested, the field is left fallow fora few years. After a year, the field will be home
to grass as tall as a person, until ultimately thefield becomes a secondary forest producing
forestry products such as bamboo shoots that canbe harvested. Then later, several years after the
initial harvest, when vegetation has regenerated
to a sufficient degree, the field will be selected foruse again.

Bamboo shoots harvested from secondary forests.

Depending on the location and the forest itself, secondary forests resulting from shifting cultivation
are home to a variety of wild flora and fauna. Forestry products that can be obtained from secondary
forests have helped to support the lives and livelihoods of villagers. They can sometimes serve as
substitutes for rice and also can be used as a means of generating cash income. There are some plantsthat grow only in secondary forests. As such, these secondary forests are created by virtue of shiftingcultivation practices and support the lives of upland farmers. They could be referred to as satoyama,<2-9>2<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

a Japanese term denoting mountains, woodlands, and grasslands near or surrounding villages that
support the livelihoods of residents.
These secondary forests are very important places for securing food for people. Secondary forests arehome to many plants, from wild grasses and varieties of bamboo shoots and mushrooms to potatoes,
which can be picked and gathered. Wild animals, from squirrels and mice to wild boar, can be hunted.
When the staple food of rice falls into short supply, villagers have looked to the forest to collect
food including bamboo shoots or potatoes to avoid hunger. In addition, the forest is also a trove of
medicinal grasses such as those that help with headaches, stomachaches, nerve pain or toothaches.
These secondary forests are often misunderstood by outside observers to be nothing more thanovergrown or degraded forest land. However, these patches of forest growth actually host a wealth of
biodiversity and support the lives of people living nearby.
The products of secondary forests are also a precious source of cash income for villagers. At thevillage market, in addition to vegetables harvested in the field, foodstuffs such as bamboo shoots,
mushrooms, and banana flowers from the forests are sold as well. Moreover, they also sell secondary
forests products that brokers come to buy, such as cardamom, wild khaa (a variety of ginger grown inThailand), paper mulberry, which can be used to make paper, and tiger grass, which is used to makebrooms.

Environmental Changes and Shifting Cultivation

Expanding rubber plantations.

Land erosion seen in fields growing corn for livestock.

Fields used in shifting cultivation are a crucial source of food production for many farmers. The Laogovernment has regarded shifting cultivation as a cause of deforestation and vowed to stamp it out,
pursuing a number of policies toward that end. However, these efforts were not accompanied by
an improvement of agricultural productivity or the creation of businesses to generate employment
opportunities. The eradication of shifting cultivation was trumpeted as the goal and involved theforced relocation of villages among other things, and there were many instances of land and forest use
disruption as well as people losing their livelihoods.
At the same time, in recent years, the scale of monoculture cash crops in Southeast Asia has been
expanding. These include the following crops: rubber, eucalyptus and acacia for producing paper, oilpalm for commercial plantations, and cassava, sugarcane, and corn for animal feed. Monocultures
are used to increase productivity for commercial purposes, but repeated planting and harvesting of<2-9>3<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

a single crop has negative environmental consequences including soil depletion and can also risk harming
the food security of local residents. In Laos, shifting-cultivation fields have been increasingly converted
into common fields to grow cash crops. Consequently, areas are increasing where repeated harvesting of
monoculture crops is depleting the soil, and the use of pesticides is on the rise.
Increases in population, government policy restricting shifting cultivation, and expansion of monoculture,are decreasing the area of land that can be used for shifting cultivation. Hence, areas left fallow must be usedagain for shifting cultivation before they have sufficiently regenerated. This places demands on nature that it
cannot meet and cases of soil depletion are on the rise.

Climate Change and Shifting Cultivation
Shifting cultivation is an agricultural practice that by definition involves removing vegetation and tilling
land. As such it results in the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, which is regarded asa cause of global warming. In Laos, when international climate change policy schemes such as REDD
(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) have been debated, shifting cultivation
has tended to be treated as one factor contributing to deforestation.
However, specialists and organizations well versed in this topic have pointed out that in Asia, the primaryfactor driving deforestation and CO2 emissions is not the expansion of shifting cultivation, but rather theconversion of forest directly into industrial plantations or agricultural land (FAO et al. 2008). Also, in Laos,
major causes of deforestation include the clearing of forest vegetation for large-scale hydropower dam
construction, mine development and road construction.
In addition, research has also shown that when shifting cultivation is accompanied by an adequate fallow
period, it absorbs far more CO2 than industrial plantations or land on which the same crops are grownseasonally (Erni 2009).
If climate change schemes are introduced with no consideration given to local citizens’ land use practices,then not only may this lead to impoverishment of local citizens, but it could also result in a loss of
biodiversity in secondary forests and turn out to be more destructive.

The Future of Shifting Cultivation
Shifting cultivation, when practiced with a sufficient fallow period that allows adequate return of vegetation,
has historically been a sustainable method that also works to protect forests and contribute to biodiversity.
As such, shifting cultivation has played a significant role ensuring food security for residents of this region
and fostered biodiversity in secondary forests, and should be reevaluated on these merits.
At the same time, land available for shifting cultivation has become scarcer in recent years in both absoluteand relative terms, shortening cultivation cycles across the region. These developments are driven by bothinternal factors, such as population growth and a shift to cash-crop cultivation by more local residents, aswell as by external factors, including village relocation projects, the Lao government’s policy to restrict
shifting cultivation, large-scale infrastructure development, and the creation of industrial plantations. When
policies related to land and forest or the implementation of development projects by government or businessare being considered, it is essential to also take into account local residents’ land and forest use practices
and to involve them in decision-making. Introduction of climate change schemes such as REDD must be<2-9>4<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

premised on consideration of land use by local residents, including shifting cultivation.
In addition, the Lao government has been promoting a shift to cash crop cultivation, especially among
local communities engaged in shifting cultivation. Risk-related information such as fluctuations inmarket prices and environmental impacts, however, are not properly communicated to residents.
Consequently, curbing shifting cultivation and encouraging cash-crop cultivation will cause a decline
in food security and increase environmental destruction. What is of paramount importance, regardlessof whether shifting cultivation is continued or other land use methods are adopted, is that residents
themselves select the method of land use that they deem to be most suitable for their area.
References
Erni, C. 2009. Shifting Cultivation and Climate Change. Bangkok, Thailand: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). 2008. UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
Developing Countries (UN-REDD): Framework Document 20 June 2008.
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/tk/redd-ilc-01/other/redd-ilc-01-un-en.pdf
Roder, W. 2001. Slash-and-Burn Rice Systems in the Hills of Northern Lao PDR: Description, Challenges, and Opportunities.
Vientiane, Lao PDR: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).
Simana, S, and E. Preisig. 2003. Kmhmu' Livelihood: Farming the Forest. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Institute for Cultural Research.

Satomi Higashi

1. In these concessions, the government rents land to private companies, giving them the right to use an area of land for a long period oftime (usually 20-50 years) for development and business purposes.

<2-9>
5

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

3. People, Natural Resource Management,
and Conservation of Ecosystems

3-1. Spirit Worship and Forest Conservationin the Mekong Basin
Spirit Worship and Natural Resources Management
In China’s Yunnan Province, Laos, northeastern Thailand, and northwestern Vietnam’s Mekong River
Basin area, the Dai, Hani, Lao and other ethnic groups still practice ceremonies for spirits that live inthe forests. There are also various taboos that are still respected today when using the forests. Spirit
worship has functioned to deter excessive forest use and logging.
Ethnic group

Locations

Description of Forest Spirit Worship

SourceSouthern Yunnan, China and along The Hani believe that each spirit has its own Xu et al. (2005)
the northern borders of Burma, Laos, abode (such as a wetland, pond, rock, andHani
special tree). Many of these spirits reside in(Akha in northern and Vietnam
the forests. In such forests, it is taboo for Hani
Burma,Laos, andvillagers to take forest products, hunt animals,
Thailand)or cut down trees.
Southern Yunnan, eastern Burma, the The Dai have traditionally believed that forests, Xu et al. (2005)
mountain regions of Laos, northern animals, and plants have natural powers withThailand, and northwestern Vietnam spiritual and religious meanings. Inciting thewrath of spirits inhabiting various natural
phenomena with inappropriate behavior brings
disaster or great misfortune to the village.
Among the Dai people, it is encouraged to livein harmony with the environment that surrounds
them.
Dien Bien Dong District of Vietnam’s Dai villages have sacred forests where ancestral Tran et al. (2007)
Lai Chau Province
spirits live, and their protection is veryDai
important to the villagers. Those who violate
the sacred forests will have their souls stolenby angry spirits, and it is believed that theyeither go insane or die. To atone for the sins,the imposter is punished according to village
rules, and a water buffalo or other animals may
be sacrificed. On the other hand, these sacred
forests are also the common property of thevillage, so when forest resources are sold, theincome is put into a common community fundand is managed in accordance with certain rules.
Northeastern Thailand
Among the Lao ethnic group in northeastern interviews by
Thailand, villagers respect forests called Don Mekong Watch
Phu Ta in which spirits are said to reside. Even (2012)
in northeastern Thailand where much logging
takes place, Don Phu Ta have been left inLaogood condition, and some of them are nowclassified as conservation forests or villagecommon property, and are the targets of modern
conservation efforts.
Table: Examples of Forest Spirit Worship in the Mekong Basin

<3-1>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Spirit Forests of Savannakhet Province, Laos
A forest called Don Nathat Nong Lom in That Ing-han Village of Kaisorn (formally Kantaburi)
District of Savannakhet Province in central Laos has been kept in good condition. According to village
records, this forest has an area of about 4,300 hectares, and is also an important regional water source.
It is now publicly designated as a conservation forest (Pa Saguan), but this forest has also traditionallybeen respected by villagers because they believed that strong spirits reside there. These beliefs are still
upheld today, and in Savannakhet Province, these forests
are known as Mahasaek forests.
In the village, there is a Buddhist temple with a tower
called That Ing-han, which is deeply respected among
villagers. The taboos of the forest are now explained in
Buddhist terms. The forest borders a marsh called Nong
Lom, but this marsh is also seen to belong to spirits, and
it is prohibited to send boats out to fish or to hunt certain
animals that the Buddha is said to have forbidden eating(e.g., snakes and monkeys).

Spirit houses in Sisaket Province, northeastern
Thailand.

Every year in March of the lunar calendar, ceremonies for the spirits are conducted, and offerings
excluding meat and alcohol are offered. Villagers today still believe that taking timber products fromthe forest without the permission of the spirits, cutting trees, and neglecting ceremonies is taboo. If
someone violates these rules, it is greatly feared that villagers will either fall ill or die. It is said thatseveral decades ago, because Buddhist ceremonies had become more important in a certain village,
the village elders stopped conducting ceremonies for the spirits. Then, in the midst of a Buddhist
ceremony, a large storm ravaged only this village, so they realized they had to continue the ceremonies
for the spirits. Also, if someone in the village violates the taboos, strange phenomena are said tooccur, such as an invisible horse running around the village through the night. Therefore, if it becomes
known that someone has violated the taboos, villagers discuss the matter and a ceremony is done toappease the spirits in order to prevent disaster from befalling the village.

Sustainable Use of Spirit Forests
While villagers hold the forest in awe, they also use it on a daily basis. Cutting trees is possible if
permission is received. According to village officials, about 100 of the 360 households of That Inghan Village are using the resources of the forest, but many households from 13 other villages insurrounding areas also come to the forest to take what they need. When it is mushroom collecting
season, people from even further away come to collect them.
In this forest, villagers collect edible mushrooms, wild grasses, honey, and resin used as fuel. Because
it recently became a conservation forest, it is prohibited to collect firewood. The explanation given forthis change was that there were increasing numbers of people collecting firewood not for their own
use, but to sell, so it was a necessary measure to protect the forest.
Also, forest products are a means of gaining cash income. In the dry season, villagers collect tree
resin called nam man yang. This is used as fuel for torches called kabong. Electrification is spreading<3-1>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

in Laos, so these torches are not used for light, but are sold in the markets as fire starters for charcoal
stoves. Some are even exported to Thailand. To collect the resin, people first dig a hole in the trunk ofa tree. Then a fire is lit in the hole to remove the resin, but the trees do not die in this process. Every
few years, the villagers will dig a hole in a different place, and the old hole is no longer used, so it fills
up and recovers. The process is thus managed so that the tree does not die.
Traditionally, a dry dipterocarp tree will belong to one household that has the right to take resin fromit. One household may have 7 or 8 trees, and at most 10. While it is permitted to take resin, there is noright to log. The right to take resin is handed down from generation to generation.

Crisis of Spirit Forests
In central Laos, some venerated forests thus became conservation forests. Examples of the deep
connection between people’s lives and the forest—as seen in Don Natha Nong Lam where villagers
limited firewood collection of their own initiative—show the potential for effective resource
management by villagers themselves.
Now, however, forests which were once protected by people’s awe of spirits are now being threatenedby expanding plantation forests like rubber, pulp, and sugarcane plantations, because these commercial
activities often involve logging of natural forests. Laos is also rapidly modernizing, so there is a highdemand for non-timber forest products, and there is great interest in dry dipterocarp as timber. As apolicy, Laos is aiming to increase forest cover with commercial forests, but in the past, there havebeen many reports of afforestation projects being used as an excuse to log natural forests.
Effective forest conservation in the Mekong River Basin requires not only taking biodiversity andfood security into consideration, but calls for respecting the value of forests that have been protectedby villagers and spirits. It is important to implement forest management that is appropriate to theregion and not overly obsessed with numerical targets.
ReferencesTran, C. T., X. Q. Le, and V. H. Vu. 2007. The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Sustainable Development: A Case Study of theVietnam Mountain Regions. In E. K. Boon and L. Hens (eds.) Tribes and Tribals, Special Volume No. 1 Indigenous Knowledge Systems
and Sustainable Development: Relevance for Africa. Kamla-Raj Enterprises 215-224.
Xu, Jianchu, Erzi T. Ma, Duojie Tashi, Yongshou Fu, Zhi Lu, and David Melick. 2005. Integrating Sacred Knowledge for Conservation:
Cultures and Landscapes in Southwest China. Ecology and Society Vol. 10 Issue 2:7.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art7/

Yuka Kiguchi

<3-1>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

3-2. Reviving Culture and Environment:
The Challenge of the Chong People in Eastern Thailand
The Chong People and Language
The population of Chong people living in Thailandis said to be about 4,000. They live primarily near
the Cambodian border in Khaokhichakhut andPhongnamron Districts of eastern Chantaburi Province.
There are records indicating that they have lived there
since the days of the Khmer Empire (Premsrirat 2007:81). Chong language is the language of the Chongpeople, and it belongs to the Pearic sub-branch of the
Mon-Khmer language family, which belongs to theAustroasiatic languages.

Chong meals. Chong villagers use fresh vegetables,
plants, and herbs from the forest to cook Chongfood, which is spicier than Thai food.

The Chong people previously made their living from hunting and gathering. Many households
nowadays, however, grow durian, rambutan, mangosteen, and other fruit to sell and thus earn stable
cash income. Aside from a few, hunting and gathering is no longer practiced, but the elderly among
the Chong have a lot of knowledge about medicinal herbs and other non-timber forest products(NTFPs), and they grow herbs and trees around their homes for food and medicine. According to older
Chong in their 60’s and 70’s, they did not encounter people other than Chong when they were growing
up, and they all spoke Chong together. Then, Chinese businessmen and Cambodian laborers started
coming and eventually settling. After the end of World War II, the Thai government began promoting
the use of Thai as the National language, and sent Thai language teachers to Chong villages andbegan teaching Thai in the schools. Use of Chong language was prohibited in some schools, and evenparents began to believe that use of Chong with their children at home would inhibit their learning. So
Chong disappeared from homes, and the language was no longer handed down. At present, all Chongpeople can speak Thai. Only about 200 people can speak Chong fluently, and of them, it is said that noone is younger than 20 (Premsrirat 2007: 81).

Beginning of Chong Language Classes for Elementary School Children
At the end of 1990, linguists working at Thailand’s Mahidol
University approached leaders of the Chong community,
requesting them to participate in a class where graduate
students were being trained to document languages
unknown to them. Eventually, the Chong leaders told theresearchers that their language, culture and identity were in
peril of extinction, and that they wanted to revitalize theirlanguage and culture. The researchers responded, and thisis how the Chong Language Revitalization Project began.
In 2000, a survey was conducted among the Chong,and it became clear that more than 95% wanted to see
revitalization of their language and culture. The same year,<3-2>
1

The Chong writing system has been developed
based on Thai script. This example reads phasaa
Chong (the Chong language).

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

workshops were repeated in villages to begin developing a standardized writing system for Chong,which until then had no written language. It was agreed in the end that Thai script would be adaptedwith some modifications to capture linguistic differences between Thai and Chong. At the same time,
there was success in attaining interest from local elementary schools, and a plan was made to formallyteach Chong language to children. With cooperation from scholars, a Chong language curriculum
was developed. With the use of this curriculum, in 2002 Chong language classes began to be offered
twice a week to third graders at Wat Klong Phlu elementary school. Now it is also being taught to 4th
to 6th graders three times a week at Wat Takianthong. Students who are not of Chong ethnicity also
participate in the classes.

Protecting Language Protects Nature
In the higher grades at Wat Takianthong elementary school, Chong language classes are encouraged
to be held outdoors, so children go to places like the nearby national park and experience nature as
they learn. Also, herbalists are sometimes invited to come as guest teachers and they walk with thestudents in nearby areas, collecting edible and medicinal herbs, and students learn the names andproperties of the plants in both Thai and Chong. The children see for themselves in their daily lives
which plants can be collected, touching them with their own hands, sometimes tasting them, andin this way acquire Chong knowledge through Chonglanguage acquisition. Another venue for environmental
education is the community forest in Klong Phlu Village.
In this community forest, anyone who belongs to thevillage can enter the forest and collect food and medicinal
herbs. Cutting down trees, however, is prohibited unlessabsolutely necessary. In such cases, one must first performa special ceremony to get permission from the spirits. In
community forests, there are various efforts being madeat forest protection, such as digging ditches to prevent
A Chong herb doctor (far right) has been invited to spread of fires, tying colored ribbons around trees to alert
teach Chong plant names and uses to elementary people to their importance, and using solar energy toschool children. In Chong language class, children power intake and spray pumps. Children learn the wisdom
often go outside to study Chong language andthat Chong people have of the forest, and they also assist
tradition in natural settings (September 2011).
in regenerating the forest by planting trees.

Will Chong be Revived?
The biggest achievement of the Chong Language
Revitalization Project is that it has restored Chongconfidence and their belief in themselves as a people. This
point is recognized by elders, youth and even children.
Teachers at the elementary schools and other non-Chongpeople have expressed similar opinions. The Chong
Revitalization project has received attention from otherethnic groups in Thailand facing similar situations, suchas the Kasong people of Trat Province and the Nyahkur
people of northeast Chaiyaphum Province. While not in
the same crisis situation, speakers of Northern Khmer from
<3-2>
2Thai-Muslims from southern Thailand visit Chongvillagers to learn about language and culture
revitalization. Many Thai-Muslims in the south
speak Pattani Malay at home (October 2007).

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

northeastern Surin Province and speakers of Pattani Malay, who are Islamic people living in southern
provinces, visited Chong villages and learned about the Chong Language Revitalization Project. Now,
all these ethnic groups have revitalization projects that have goals and structures appropriate for theirlanguages, cultures, and ecosystems.
The initial goal of the Chong Language Revitalization Project was to have Chong language used again
in the local community. For the time being, however, it does not appear to be used outside of schools.
Elders in Kong Phlu Village have said that Chong is often not even spoken between spouses who areboth Chong speakers1. A non-Chong teacher who supports the project has said, “Chong language willprobably disappear, but it is important to record and remember that there was an ethnic group called
the Chong.” More than the initial goal, it may be of greater importance for the Chong that a tacitagreement seems to have been established within the local community regarding the value of Chonglanguage and culture.
References
Doi, Toshiyuki. 2011. Forest Revitalization, Language Revitalization: the Thai Chong People’s Challenge to Restore Bio-cultural
Diversity. Tokyo: Mekong Watch (in Japanese).
http://www.mekongwatch.org/PDF/Chong_booklet.pdf
Malone, Denis. 2005. Where do We Go from Here? The Challenge and Prospects of Language Revitalization in South East Asia. In
Languages and Cultures for Rural Development. Nakorn Pathom, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development,
Mahidol University at Salaya 202-220.
Premsrirat, Suwilai. 2007. Endangered Languages of Thailand. International Journal of Sociology of Language 186 75-93.

Toshiyuki Doi

1. Malone (2007: 214-216) makes the same observation and says that other challenges of the project include: 1) Not just a limited
number of people, but the entire community needs to get involved; 2) A survey is needed on the extent that Chong language is used inhomes, in particular by the elementary school children who have learned Chong at school; 3) Stable public support and funding need
to be secured; and 4) It is necessary to survey the achievements of the individual activities such as the community learning center.

<3-2>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

3-3. Outlook for the Alleviation of Issues and Risks Faced by
the Poor in the Mekong River Delta: A Case Study of Ben
Tre Province
Introduction
The Mekong River Delta, located in southern Vietnam, has led Vietnam’s agricultural and economic
development. In recent years, however, the daily lives of the people who live in the Mekong Delta
have been threatened as never before. One of the reasons for this is the rise in sea level brought about
by climate change.
A 2007 World Bank report (Dasgupta et al. 2007) states that Vietnam is one of the countries of theworld that will be most affected by climate change. A one-meter rise in sea level is predicted tohave impacts on roughly 10% of the population. In 2009, Vietnam’s Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environment prepared a report entitled Climate Change, Sea Level Rise Scenarios for Vietnam(Bo Tai Nguyen va Moi Truong 2009) and the various ministries have now begun to take specificcountermeasures based on the scenarios, such as constructing dikes. According to the latest scenarios
published in 2012, the impacts of climate change are classified into three levels. The impact of themedian scenario, a one-meter rise in sea level, would result in 39% of the delta area being inundated
by the sea. The worst-case scenario of a two-meter rise in sea level would result in more that 92% of
the delta being immersed (Nguoi Lao Dong 2012).
It is also said that the water volume flow rate of the Mekong River as it flows through the delta could
be reduced by 20 to 30% (VTV 2013). If the flow rate of the Mekong River decreases, seawater will
inevitably flow inland from the river mouth, expanding the problems of salt damage. This article
describes the issues currently faced by the poor who reside in the Mekong Delta and the outlook forthe future. It is based on the results of an interview survey conducted recently at a rural development
project implemented by the author in Binh Dai District, Ben Tre Province, as a case study of problems
experienced in the midst of this changing environment.

Prawn Culture Blues
Ben Tre Province, located roughly 80 km southwest of Ho Chi Minh City, has a population of
approximately 1.25 million people. Being surrounded by estuaries of the Mekong River, Ben Tre issaid to be one of the provinces of Vietnam that will be most severely affected by sea level rise. Binh
Dai District lies about 50 km east of the provincial capital of Ben Tre, and consists of 20 towns andvillages with a total population of approximately 140,000 people. Facing the East China Sea, thepeople who live along the coastline make a living from salt farms and harvesting natural fish andshellfish. Those living inland mainly practice wet rice farming and coconut cultivation. Since theearly 2000s, there has been an increasing shift toward high cash-value fruit and prawn aquaculture,and the cultivation of rice for export.
In Thanh Phuoc Commune (population 10,005) on the coast of Binh Dai District, many of thecommune’s residents formerly made a living from salt farms, harvesting natural prawns and fish, andwet rice cultivation. When the prawn aquaculture boom began in the beginning of the 2000s, large
numbers of residents converted their wet rice fields and salt farms into aquaculture ponds. Profits were<3-3>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

made from prawn farming for only a few years, however, after which the prawns released in the ponds
died from pollution of water sources due to excessive use of cash inputs such as industrial feed andpharmaceutical chemicals, leaving the commune residents burdened with debt.
Faced with this situation, some of the residents have turned to extensive prawn cultivation, utilizing
the rise and fall of the tide in the dry season, and in the wet season they cultivate traditional rice
varieties that grow even in salty areas, releasing ducks into the rice fields so that the ducks and ricegrow together. A resident, Mr. A, who shoulders a debt from prawn culture says, “I can get income at
the market every day by selling crabs and prawns that come in from the water channels. Growing rice
and raising ducks simultaneously gives us an abundant dinner table. I’m not going to do any more ofthat intensive prawn culture”1.

Rice Culture Blues
Chau Hung Commune (population 5,643), locatedroughly 25 km inland from the coast, suffered
severe salt damage for the first time in 2013. Mr.
B, a resident of this commune, makes a living byraising livestock on approximately 0.2 hectares ofland. In 2011, hoping to expand the scale of his pigraising business, Mr. B borrowed money from thegovernment-operated Agribank, but the price of
pork plummeted due to the outbreak of an infectious
Rice plants that have withered due to salt damage.
disease known as “blue-ear pig disease”2, leaving
Mr. B’s business in the red. In 2012, he attempted
to raise around 1,000 ducks, but 500 of them died due to the effect of agricultural chemicals. The
price plunged again when he marketed the remaining 500 birds, increasing Mr. B’s debt burden. At
the end of 2012, in an attempt to resolve his deepening debt, Mr. B rented 2.7 hectares of farmland togrow rice, but suffered salt damage and the harvest was almost totally wiped out. Only the partiallywithered rice plants remained in the fields.
Mr. B is now working on raising ducks as he participates in the Seed to Table activities3, of which theauthor is the representative. He has successfully raised 200 ducks from an original 25 birds he wasable to borrow. Mr. B says, “I will continue to grow rice because I still have to pay off the remaining
debt and the rent on the wet rice fields. As well as going to work in Ho Chi Minh City, I’ll try to
succeed raising ducks and somehow earn some cash.”
In February 2013, nearly two months earlier than in average years, seawater began to seep into Chau
Hung Commune’s water channels. This affected one third of the wet rice field area and had a serious
impact on the local people, who rely on the water channels for domestic water. In Binh Dai District,
not only Chau Hung Commune, but many communes such as Phu Thanh and Thoi Lai Communes
also suffered salt damage, with approximately 300 hectares becoming unusable. In Ben Tre Province,
similar problems have also been seen in Ba Tri, Giong Trom, Thanh Phu, and other districts, and it isexpected that the damage will continue to increase in the future4.

<3-3>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

Outlook for the Future
Based on “Scenarios” by the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment, Ben Tre Province has
already begun to construct dikes along its sea coast
to prevent erosion of the coastline and floodgates tostem the intrusion of seawater inland. These projects
have only just begun, however, and they may takea considerable amount of time to complete. In themeantime, the flow rate of the Mekong River will
decline, the sea level will continue to rise, and salt
damage will worsen, forcing the burden of earlycountermeasures on farmers.

Small-scale farmers carrying out duck farming andextensive prawn cultivation in Thanh Phuoc Commune.

It will be necessary for farmers living in areas which have previously had no experience with salt
damage, such as Chau Hung Commune, to protect their livelihoods by reducing the number of rice
harvests per year, planting hardy salt-tolerant crops during the dry season, practicing mixed farming
such as integrated duck and rice farming, and devising methods to produce diverse agriculturalcommodities using methods that give high yields even on small areas of land. In communes locatedon the coast, such as Thanh Phuoc Commune, it may be necessary to implement low-risk agricultural
methods that take advantage of local conditions, such as Mr. A’s combination of extensive prawn
culture and integrated duck and rice farming. In the meantime, the people of Binh Dai District, Ben
Tre Province continue their trial-and-error adaptation to climate change.
References
Bo Tai Nguyen va Moi Truong. 2009. Kich Ban Bien Doi Khi Hau, Nuoc Bien Dang cho Viet Nam (in Vietnamese).
http://upd.edu.vn/attachments/article/39/KichBanBienDoiKhiHauVietNam.pdf
Dasgupta, Susmita et al. 2007. The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries. A Comparative Analysis.
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4136.
Nguoi Lao Dong Newspaper. July 1, 2012.
http://nld.com.vn/20120701101847398p0c1002/nuoc-bien-dang-doa-xoa-so-dbscl.htm
VTV News. March 21, 2013.
http://vtv.vn/thoi-su/thieu-hut-ngiem-trong-nguon-nuoc-o-dbscl/61125.vtv

Mayu Ino (NPO Seed to Table)

1. Based on an interview survey conducted in Thanh Phuoc Commune in March 2013
2. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)
3. For more information on Seed to Table, visit: http://seed-to-table.org/activities.html
4. Based on an interview survey conducted in Chau Hung Commune in March 2013 and VTC14 News on March 30, 2013

<3-3>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

3-4. Toward Community-Based Forest Management:
Working with Local People to Preserve Watershed Forests
in Northern Laos
Forest Preservation Project of an
Advocacy NGO
For most people, the words “forest preservation”
typically conjure up images of forest-planting
activities. In addition, many projects designed
to protect forests also focus on decreasing local
residents’ dependence on forestry resources by
increasing their income from non-forest related
activities. However, whether an initiative is anafforestation or non-forest income-enhancement
project, negative consequences will ensue if theinitiatives are not carried out in a manner respecting
the natural environment and the intimate connection
local livelihoods have with it. When residents inareas surrounded by forests are cast out of theseareas, the connection between people's livelihoods
and natural resources can be severed, sometimes
leading to more destructive resource use and can also
further impoverish local residents.
Top-down land-use policy not aligned with the actual Figure 1: Location of the Project Siteusage practices of residents in the Pak Beng Districtof Oudomxay Province in northern Laos has led to illegal forest use and brought hardships to the livesof residents. This has driven Mekong Watch to conduct activities to bridge the communication gap
between regional government officials and local residents, and to bridge the policy implementation
gap between policy formulated at the central-government level and at the local level. In the process,
Mekong Watch has strived to achieve forest preservation with local residents as the central actors.

Land Use by Upland Farmers
For many residents in the mountainous Pak Beng District, upland shifting rice cultivation provides
the primary means of living. Shifting cultivation is typically conducted in seven to nine year cycles.
After a fallow period, when a secondary forest has recovered to a suitable level, it is cleared, burned,
and upland rice is planted. After the harvest, the field is left fallow for several years. After vegetation
returns to a suitable level several years after the harvest, the field will be selected again for farmland.
Each year in Pak Beng District, the village chief, village elders and others gather. Based on
experience, they determine the number of years since an area of land was cleared, examine its soil
quality and the size of trees on it, and decide which parcels of forest are suitable for that year’s crops.
Once the village’s shifting cultivation sites have been decided, the village chief and elders allocate
land to households based on their labor capacity. In this way, the households farm land that they do<3-4>
1<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

not own, with plot suitability and selection being based on the size of trees and soil quality. This land
use system, based on land allocations agreed upon by the village, has historically worked to secure as
stable harvests as possible, and has been flexible in responding to changes in population and land use1.

Problems Caused by Land and Forest Policy
In current-day Laos, various land and forest policies that ignore people’s actual land-use patterns arehaving a significant impact on the lives of upland farmers.
The Lao government has implemented land and forest policies seeking to restrict the practice ofshifting cultivation. Originally concocted with the aims of promoting forest preservation and reducing
poverty, these misguided policies to curb shifting cultivation have not been accompanied by increases
in agricultural productivity or an increase in alternative employment opportunities. Consequently, thecurbing of shifting-cultivation practices has become an end in itself and, conversely, is resulting in
destructive forest use practices and impoverishing local residents.
Apart from this, the government has implemented policies to relocate mountain villages to lowland androadside locations for the purpose of curbing shifting agriculture, to help eradicate drugs, control ethnic
minorities, and improve access to markets and development services. The result has been increasing
concentrations of the population along roads, shortages of farmland and destructive forest use.

Case Study of Pak Beng District:
Promotion of Damaging Forest Management Policies
Even in Pak Beng District, since 1996 the government
has implemented land and forest zoning projects.
The stated goals of these projects are preserving thenatural environment, discouraging shifting cultivation,and promoting cash-crop farming among residents toincrease the income of local people. Project activities
take place such as the redrawing of village boundaries,
allocating new farmland to people, and establishingforest-use zoning within villages.
In one village, much of the land used for shifting
cultivation up until now was designated as a protected forest, leading villagers to suffer from a serious
shortage of farmland. Within the village, people responded in a number of ways. Some rented land
from neighboring villages, while others responded by moving to other villages. However, the rented
land from neighboring villages did not suffice and most households have continued to conduct shifting
cultivation in watershed forest areas. Under these government projects, the lines that have been drawn
designating areas as forest or farmland make people’s traditional agricultural practices “illegal”.
In other villages, land shortages have driven residents to shorten the fallow period to around three
years with some land being farmed in successive seasons. With fallow periods being too short, soil
deterioration is progressing and harvests are decreasing.
Moreover, there are instances in which forests near streams or watershed forests that villagers<3-4>2<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

traditionally protected have been cleared. Making shifting cultivation in entire watershed forests“illegal” effectively erases the meaning people placed on conserving the smaller wooded areas within
the watershed. So now, there are cases of villagers clearing land and engaging in shifting cultivation inareas near watershed forests that traditionally they would have revered.

Toward Community-Based Forest Management: Mekong Watch’s Challenge
As evidenced in the case of Pak Beng District, land and forest policy implemented from the top down
has confused the land use practices of local residents. That said, in light of the rapid expansion being
witnessed in Laos that has included large-scale development, industrial plantations and cash-crop
agriculture, a wholesale rejection of the government’s land and forest zoning efforts and a simple
return to the local residents’ traditional style of land use would not solve the existing problems. To
truly protect villagers’ rights from being infringed upon by outside corporations and development
projects, villagers’ land and forest use rights need to be written into law.

Survey preparing for land and forest demarcation.

A workshop to discuss issues relating to land use invillages.

Since 2005, Mekong Watch has been working in conjunction with Laos National University’s
Forestry Department to implement a watershed forest management project in Pak Beng District. With
the following goals, the project has undertaken surveys and put forth policy recommendations: 1)
Achieving watershed forest management that reconciles and maintains both forest preservation andthe livelihoods of local residents; 2) creating a mechanism for residents to participate in decisionmaking related to land- and forest-use issues; and 3) ensuring that on-site problems are realisticallyand fairly addressed in central policy measures.
In 2007, as a part of this initiative the Houay Kasaen River Watershed Management Committee wasestablished. It is made up of representatives from eight villages with farmland in the watershed forest
area and District administrative officers. The committee convenes before villagers decide where they
will conduct shifting cultivation and again after harvest. At meetings, plans are formulated for land
use and forest preservation and discussions are held to resolve existing issues. In addition, under thecommittee, a review of land use categories was undertaken with the aim of legally making villagers
the central players in land management and securing farmland required for shifting cultivation cycles,
including fallow land. This is being done in villages where actual land use patterns have been ignored
and blind implementation of land use policy has resulted in problems.
The establishment of this committee and the review of land use categories have created a forum for<3-4>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

administrative officials and local residents to work together to resolve land use and forest preservation
issues. This is clearly a significant and notable achievement. However, much work remains,
including heightening local resident understanding and appreciation of forest use rules and watershedmanagement activities as well as reflecting the Pak Beng District experience in policy. To improve
the autonomy and the sustainability of the project, follow-up activities are being undertaken, such asenvironment workshops involving local residents, particularly women. At the same time, activities toshare the Pak Beng District experience with other areas and the central government are also taking
place.
References
Higashi, Satomi. 2006. Village Land and Forest Problems Resulting from Policy Implementation. Forum Mekong Vol. 8 No. 1, 7-10.
http://www.mekongwatch.org/PDF/FM8_1.pdf
Higashi, Satomi. 2009. A Measure for Separating Forests and Agricultural Land: The Lives of Shifting-Cultivation Farmers andAssigning Responsibility for Land and Forest Management. In Mekong Watch (ed.) ’Measure’ Impact on the Lives of Laotian ShiftingCultivation Farmers. Tokyo, Japan: Mekong Watch 29-64 (in Japanese).
http://www.mekongwatch.org/PDF/hakaru_PDF_Full.pdf
Higashi, Satomi. 2010. Forest Policy Causing Deforestation and the Role of “Outsiders”: Case Study of Land and Forest Allocation
Projects in Laos. In M. Ichikawa, F. Ubukata, and D. Naito (eds.) The People of Tropical Asia and Forest Management Systems:
Discussing Governance from the Frontlines. Tokyo, Japan: Jimbun Shoin 66-84(in Japanese).

Satomi Higashi

1. For more information, see BP 2-9 Shifting Cultivation and Upland Life in Northern Laos.

<3-4>
4

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

4. Transformation of Nature in Japanand Initiatives for its Restoration
4-1. Japan: A Forest-Rich Nation Buying Up Global Timber
One of the World’s Most-Forested Countries
Although Japan is often seen as an urbanized, industrial powerhouse, the nation in fact boasts an
extremely high level of forest coverage. Of the nation’s total area of 37.79 million hectares, 25.1
million hectares or 66.4% is covered by forest, making Japan the third most-forested developed
country behind only Finland and Sweden (Forestry Agency 2012). Compared with the 30% global
average forest coverage rate, Japan’s forest coverage is clearly extremely high.

先進国の森林率

％
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 1: Forest Area Percentage among Industrialized Countries (based on FAO 2010)(left to right) Finland, Sweden, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Australia, Slovakia,
Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic

An island nation surrounded by ocean, Japan is a mountainous land with steep terrain. Coupledwith abundant rain and humidity, this results in conditions conducive to forest growth almost all
around the nation. Japan is a narrow country running more than 4,000 km north to south with diverse
climatic conditions. To the far south is Okinawa, near Taiwan with a subtropical climate; in the northis Hokkaido, near Siberia with a subarctic climate. As a result, natural forests in Japan range fromsubtropical forests including mangroves, to temperate evergreen broadleaf forests, cold temperate
deciduous forests, and subarctic coniferous forests. Japan is host to very diverse natural vegetation, so
much so that Japan is said to be a biodiversity hot spot. However, today 10 million hectares, or up to
40% of the nation’s forest area, is made up of man-made conifer forests. This has been caused, as will
be described later, by the planting of limited types of conifer species deemed to be of economic value
and funded with the help of government subsidies.
<4-1>1<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

A man-made forest on the left compared to a natural forest on the right.

Role of Local Satoyama in Supporting Agriculture and Livelihoods
In Japan, the mountains and hills that provide for agriculture and underpin people’s lives in nearby
communities are called satoyama. These satoyama have played an important role in Japanese
agriculture and in supporting people’s daily lives.
Although modernization has reached a fairly advanced stage in Japan, it was not uncommon evenin recent years to see people, especially in agricultural areas, using various satoyama resources inagriculture and in their lives. For example, satoyama supplied many resources that helped in many
areas: coal and wood used for cooking, heating bathwater, and heating homes; natural fertilizer forfarming; food for farm animals; materials for agriculture and construction; a wealth of mountainvegetables and mushrooms; nuts and fruits including chestnuts, walnuts, and mountain grapes eaten as
food; and herbs used for medicinal purposes. Wildlife and insects including boar, deer, pheasants, andbee larvae occupied very important positions as food sources in mountain villages. This way of using
forests was common across Asia, and Japan was no exception until some 40 or 50 years ago. Trees
from satoyama were consistently and sustainably used and this use was well planned. Some trees
were selectively preserved, and new trees were planted as needed. As such, satoyama were more likesecondary forests that were created in accordance and in harmony with the local climate, rather thanvirgin forests or monoculture plantations.
The role of satoyama began to change drastically in the 1960s, due to the modernization of agriculture
and lifestyle as well as changes in fuel usage. People started to depend more on fossil fuels andcommercial fertilizers imported from overseas for agriculture. Consequently, forests were used less asa source of natural resources. People’s way of life changed also. Many farmers left their farms to joincompanies and work for wages. With fewer people using these satoyama forests as sources of natural
resources for agriculture and to support them in their daily lives, the role of satoyama rapidly changed.

Rapid Proliferation of Man-Made Forests
In the 1960s, as satoyama lost their agricultural value, the Japanese government threw its weightbehind policies to expand afforestation nationwide. At that time, there was a shortage of lumber due
to the overharvesting of lumber during World War II. This scarcity drove up prices as demand surged
in conjunction with the construction accompanying Japan’s economic growth. Swathes of natural<4-1>
2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

forests filled with non-uniform trees deemed unsuitable for construction were cleared. In their place
were planted more construction-friendly varieties of trees, such as conifer trees including cypress andcedar. The government also provided financial aid for planting these coniferous forests. During thisperiod, the number of man-made forests increased by 30% in only 20 years, with their area reaching
10 million hectares. This was accompanied by a 15% drop in natural forest coverage area. In this way,satoyama that no longer fulfilled its original role of supporting local agriculture was replaced by theplanting of cypress and cedar trees with expectations that these would have economic value in the
future.

Domestic Timber Prices Fall and Forests are Devastated after Lifting the
Ban on Foreign Timber Imports
To meet the high timber demand in Japan, the Japanese government lifted the ban on importing
foreign timber in 1964 while at the same time using subsidies for conifer trees to promote its policyof increased afforestation. Massive quantities of foreign timber began to be imported into Japan asa stable yet low-cost resource, and domestic timber prices soared. Coupled with the rise in the valueof the yen, Japan’s timber self-sufficiency plunged to 31% in 1980 before falling to around 20% in
1990—all of this from a level of around 95% in 1955. The cheap imported materials kept lowering
the prices of domestic timber from 1980 onward, and discouraged many owners of planted forests ofJapanese cedar and cypress from managing and expanding their businesses.
日本の木材需要と木材自給率の推移
千㎥
120,000

100.0
90.0

100,000

80.0
70.0

80,00060.0
50.0

60,000

国産材
輸入材
自給率

40.0
40,00030.0
20.0

20,000

10.0
0.0

0
0

5

20
1

0

20
0

5

20
0

0

19
9

5

19
9

0

19
8

5

19
8

0

19
7

5

19
7

19
6

19
6

0

19601965197019751980198519901995200020052010

Figure 2: Change in domestic timber self-sufficiency (Unit: 1,000m3)
Red: domestic lumber
Blue: imported lumber
Green: self-sufficiency ratio

Natural forests can be left unattended without falling out of balance. Planted man-made forests,
however, require ongoing maintenance and management as brush needs to be cleared and branches
cut, especially when the forests are high-density, monoculture forests. Owners of man-made forests
who were discouraged by the depreciating value of their timber, generally neglected to care for theirforests after receiving subsidies from the government for only the initial planting process. As a result,forest owners’ eagerness to engage in forestry was sapped by slumping prices, and they planted<4-1>
3

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

forests seeking subsidies. But because they failed to follow through and manage them, man-madeforests have been abandoned nationwide. This situation created areas of densely packed thin trees ofsimilar height, which further contributed to lower timber prices. In addition, these weaker trees weresusceptible to volatile weather such as typhoons and heavy rains, contributing to disasters such as
landslides and forest damage.

Bringing Back the Forgotten Roles of Mountains
Japan is a nation blessed with abundant rain and there is a proverb that says, “The fields andmountains will take care of themselves.” In a place like Japan with a wealth of precipitation, theclimatic conditions are such that, left to their own devices, natural forests will sprout. Indeed, Japanis incredibly fortunate to have such a robust environment. Natural forests can grow and maintainthemselves; they can also host a rich array of biodiversity. Fundamentally, the government lifting its
ban on foreign timber coupled with its policy of forest expansion led to clearing of natural forests andincreased the nationwide spread of planted monoculture conifer forests. This is what caused domestic
timber prices to tank. As a result, many artificial, planted forests fell into a state of disrepair. They
were ravaged by a lack of attention and contributed to natural disasters. Both the forest owners aswell as the government, which invested in planting these forests, were left in debt. Until 1996, thegovernment provided financial aid to forest owners to encourage the planting of conifer trees as partof its forest-development policy. These subsidies also promoted the planting of artificial forests ininappropriate areas such as on steep inclines and at high altitudes.
In recent years, the value of forests has been revisited. Increasingly, they are valued not only interms of their economic worth, but from many perspectives including disaster prevention and water
regulation, biodiversity conservation and recreational usage. When it comes to assessing forest value
across these many facets natural forests are generally highly regarded and man-made forests regarded
as inferior. In short, the national afforestation efforts and the flood of imported foreign timber
destroyed the economic value of Japanese forests and led to much land being replaced with artificial
forests that have minimal value in terms of biodiversity.

Japan: A Leading Importer of Timber
When speaking with people from overseas, they sometimes ask why Japan does not harvest its own
forests and if the reason Japan imports timber from other countries is to preserve its own forests. In
reality, the Japanese government, in particular the Forestry Agency, would like to see greater use ofdomestic timber and has in fact been formulating strategies to encourage the use of domestic timber.
However, most of the natural forests that would have been able to provide a significant volume oftimber are now gone while the man-made forests that were planted at immense cost and effort are now
largely abandoned and in a dilapidated and ruinous state. As the planted forests are predominantly
cypress and cedar, the potential uses for timber from these forests are very limited. Also, the steep
terrain of these forests makes it very costly to transport timber in Japan making it difficult for forest
owners to turn a profit as timber prices continue to fall.
Industries such as the construction and furniture industries that use much timber already depend
on imported foreign timber, as this offers greater choice at lower cost. Although Japan is a heavily
forested country with a high ratio of planted forest, it can only satisfy just less than 30% of domestic
timber demand with wood from domestic forests. This is certainly an improvement over past figures<4-1>
4

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>of 20%, but it does not appear likely that Japan will be able to achieve the government’s stated goalof 50% self-sufficiency any time soon. One thing that might help the situation is for Japan to adopt
legislation akin to that in the European Union, United States and Australia that bans the import ofillegally harvested timber. Getting rid of illegally harvested timber or even timber that is possibly
illegally harvested could serve to increase domestic timber prices and support the domestic forestry
industry. As a country that is a heavy importer of timber, this is an issue that needs to be addressedanyway. As both the government and the forestry industry are usually skeptical of new ideas,
however, they are very slow to take action and implement legal and regulatory changes.

Toward Forestry and Forest Conservation Independent of Plantation Forests
In the definition expounded by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), there is no distinction
made between man-made planted forests and natural forests. According to the FAO, China’s forested
areas have increased in the recent years, but this is because of increased plantation forests. These
new forests are often plantations mainly for paper manufacturing and timber. As such, they cannot
be expected to yield much in terms of biodiversity. Since there is a vast difference in terms ofboth content and function when comparing planted and natural forests, the two should be regarded
separately. Natural forests and planted forests are similar in some respects yet very different whenit comes to ecology and use by residents. This is something that must not be forgotten. In addition,
an increase in planted forests alone will be incapable of supporting existing ecosystems or even thediverse needs of people.
Along the Mekong River, many natural forests have been converted into rubber, eucalyptus andpalm oil monoculture plantations. In Japan, 58% of the forests are privately owned with the rights
retained by residents. However, most of the forests in Southeast Asia are owned by the state. Citizens’
rights to use these natural forests are traditionally recognized, but these rights are often lost whenpolicies outlining forest use rights are enacted and forests are transformed into plantations managed
by corporations. This can ignite conflict between the local residents and the governments. It also
exacerbates economic disparity as it further impoverishes the poor who depend on forest resources.
Although people tend to regard tropical forests as something far away, in Japan, we need to rememberthat the products grown and made from timber harvested from tropical plantations, including paper,
palm oil and rubber, in fact support our comfortable lives. It is important that we remind ourselves thatthe everyday necessities upon which we depend come from finite resources, so that we do not waste
them. In addition, it is important to actively maintain and effectively use the existing planted forests
in Japan while searching for methods to minimize our dependence on and lessen the excessive burden
we place upon the natural forests of the world, including tropical forests.
References
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Rome, Italy: FAO.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/
Forestry Agency (2012) Forestry White Paper.
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/23hakusyo/

Sayoko Iinuma (Global Environmental Forum)

<4-1>
5

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

4-2. Removal of the Arase Dam: Japan’s First Attempt toDismantle a Hydroelectric Dam and Restore the Original River
Environment
Overview of Arase Dam
The Arase Dam, built exclusively for hydroelectric power
generation, had an annual power output of 74.66 million
kWh (kilowatt per hour). Completed in 1955, the dam islocated about 15 km from the estuary of the Kuma River(mainstream length 115 km, watershed area 1,880 km2) as
it flows past Sakamoto Town (formerly Sakamoto Village),
Yatsushiro City, in southern Kumamoto Prefecture. The
Arase Dam is a concrete gravity dam consisting of eightgates, having a height of 25 m, a total length of 210.8 m,
Arase Dam.
a total reservoir storage capacity of 10.14 million m 3,
and a submerged area of 123 ha. It is the oldest of theprefecture-operated hydroelectric dams constructed according to Kumamoto Prefecture’s Kuma River
Comprehensive Development Plan.
The removal of the Arase Dam has been beset with twists and turns. The first decision for the removal
was made by the Prefecture Council and the Prefectural Governor in 2003 due to lobbying fromfisher-folks and local residents, only to have the decision frozen in 2008 when a new governor cameinto office. In 2010, however, when it became clear that the procedure to renew water rights could not
be done without the agreement of the fishing co-op, the final decision to remove the dam was madeand work to dismantle the dam began in 20121.

Changes in Environment and Lifestyle in the Kuma River Watershed
Brought about by the Dam
Three dams have been constructed on the Kuma River mainstream, the construction of all three
being pursued intensively over a period of a few years in the late 1950s. These are, in order from theestuary, the Arase Dam (completed in 1955), the Setoishi Dam (completed in 1958), and the Ichifusa
Dam (completed in 1959). The construction of these dams had serious impacts on the Kuma River
environment.
Prior to the construction of the Kuma River dams, catches of ayu fish (Plecoglossus altivelis altivelis)
were extremely large. A river fish, the ayu is one of the most popular Japanese freshwater fish. The
Kawabe River, a tributary of the Kuma River, was particularly well known for the “shaku ayu,” alarge ayu reaching over 30 cm in length, providing livelihoods for professional river fisher-folks andattracting large numbers of angling enthusiasts. The ayu made great contributions to the economy of
the Kuma River watershed, including the inns and local restaurants that catered to the anglers. It isreported that at a time when the average salary for white collar workers in Japan was about 8,000 yen
per month, 10,000 yen could be made in a day by catching and selling ayu fry.

<4-2>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

At the construction site of the Arase Dam in Sakamoto Village, five to six tons of ayu could be
harvested in the two months of the “ochi ayu”2 season. This fishing was carried out by around 280
people in 30 households, but the number of people involved is reported to have fallen to just 16 in thefive years following the completion of the Arase Dam, and to a mere two by 20003. The ayu spawn in
the river in the fall, and the eggs flow down the river to hatch in the vicinity of the estuary. The ayu
fry then swim back up the river in the spring. Large structures that obstruct the flow of water, such as
dams, become serious obstacles hindering the movement of the ayu.
In addition to ayu, eels, donko (a kind of fish, Odontobutis obscura) and gane (a kind of crab,
Eriocheir japonica) could also be caught before the dam was constructed. The donko and gane, caught
using handmade implements, were consumed by local families, and it is said that children would sellthem to adults if they caught a lot of them4. It appears that these creatures also virtually disappeared
within a few years following the construction of the dam.
Since the Kuma River is also the only major river flowing into the Yatsushiro Sea, the freshwater andnutrients from the river are vitally important for the ecology of this almost totally landlocked sea. The
estuary of the Kuma River has tidal flats of about 1,000 hectares, and before the dam was constructed,
the flats were so ecologically rich that even a child could fill a bucket with prawns5.
After the construction of the dam, the biota of the flats changed. The return of the ayu to the upstream
waters was obstructed, and the tidal flats became muddy and difficult to walk on due to a reduction in
the amount of sand flowing down the river. Since the ayu were of significant importance to the local
economy, the fishing co-op began a project to collect ayu fry taken from a fishway of a weir locatedin the lowest regions of the Kuma River, and then transported them by truck to release the fry in
upstream areas. It cost them 50 million yen (approximately USD 500,000) per year to do this. Whilea fishway was constructed on the Arase Dam in 1998, only a very small number of ayu were able topass it, and according to the observation of local fisher-folks, the dam reservoir at the top end of the
fishway was almost completely still. Even if the ayu were able to swim up the fishway, they were notable to swim further upstream from there.
The dam also distressed local residents with its noises and vibrations, deterioration of water quality,
and unpleasant smell. In the former Sakamoto Village, people were living in homes built close to
the river to make it easy to fetch water for daily life. There were floods before the dam was built,
but people coexisted with the floods by moving their household belongings to the upper floor before
the floods arrived, and going out to catch ayu or collect river sand during flood times. However, thedamage to these private houses was extremely severe after completion of the Arase Dam because thewater level rose very rapidly when water was released. Silt that built up in the dam lake behind thedam flowed downstream when water was released. The houses that were flooded became inundatedwith silt, making it impossible for the people to coexist with the floods.

The Process up to the Decision to Remove the Dam
There were several twists and turns in the story up to the point when the final decision was made toremove the dam. In the former Sakamoto Village, where the dam is situated, the Sakamoto Village
River Fisher-folks’ Union began activities targeted at revitalization of the Kuma River in 2001, a
couple years before the renewal of water rights was due in March 2003. An Association to Consider<4-2>2

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

the Arase Dam that encompassed a wider range of the local residents was established, thus givingorganization to the calls for the removal of the dam as the consensus of the residents. In September
2002, the Sakamoto Village Council submitted a written opinion to Kumamoto Prefecture demanding
suspension of the use of the dam. The prefecture then announced that it would limit the renewal of
the water rights of the Arase Dam to seven years and begin the work of dismantling the dam in April
2010. This was the first time an official decision was made to dismantle a hydroelectric dam, not onlyin Japan but in the whole of Asia. The prefecture then continued deliberations on the methods and soon to be used to dismantle the dam by establishing an Arase Dam Measures Investigation Committee
consisting of academic experts, related organizations and representatives of the local residents.
The process was proceeding smoothly until Governor Kabashima was inaugurated in 2008. It wasannounced that the plan to decommission the dam had been withdrawn for economic reasons, among
which was the estimated 10 billion yen (approximately USD 100 million) cost to dismantle the dam.
When in January 2010 it became clear that the procedure for the renewal of water rights, due toexpire in March of that year, could not be completed on time6, dam removal once again became thepolicy espoused by the prefecture. At the end of March 2010, power generation at the Arase Dam was
terminated and all the gates were fully opened on April 1st.

The State of River Restoration in the First Year after Opening the Gates
A year and a half after the gates opened, the revival of the Kuma River had become apparent to the
local people who had been continually observing the river. According to Ms. Shoko Tsuru, Vice
Chairperson of the Kumamoto Nature Interpreter’s Association, the changes seen thus far in the river
can be described as follows:
1) Change in water quality: Water downstream from the dam that was turbid before the gates wereopened, has shown a remarkable change, becoming clear and blue following the opening of thegates. Water turbidity after rain also clears more rapidly;
2) The appearance of rapids and pools: Before construction of the dam, there were rapids andpools in about 20 locations above and below the dam site, resulting in a self-purifying effecttaking place through the creation of turbulence in the river flow. After the construction of the dam,these rapids and pools were lost due to inundation upstream and a reduction in the supply of earthand sand downstream. They have reappeared after the gates were opened;
3) Kuma River fish: It has not been possible to ascertain the state of restoration of fish thus far;4) Kuma River estuary tidal flats: It is reported that after the gates were opened the amount of sandflowing down the river increased. The muddiness of the Yatsushiro Sea tidal flats was therefore
reduced and they have become easier to walk on. The numbers of creatures that inhabit the sandy
areas by digging holes in the sand, such as anajako (a kind of prawn, Upogebia major) andhamaguri (common orient clam, Meretrix lusoria), appear to have increased, but since the numberof people collecting these has also increased it has not been possible to ascertain precise numbers;5) Green laver (aonori) in the vicinity of the estuary: Although these grew to only about 50 cm inlength before the gates were opened, they now extend to about two meters. The colors are now
more vivid than before and fade less easily;6) Fisheries in the Yatsushiro Sea: The seaweed bed in the vicinity of the Kuma River estuary has
revived. Very soon after the gates were opened, large catches of the brachiopod midorishamisengai(Lingula anatina) became possible for the first time in 30 years, and veined rapa whelk (akanishi)
and razor clam (mategai) have also increased. Eels, which no one had tried to catch for many years<4-2>3<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

due to their absence from the environment, reappeared after the gates were opened and foundtheir way onto the market last year;
7) Removal of the dam and revival of the sea: Since the gates were opened, it appears that thewater in the estuary and even the sea has become cleaner. The Kuma River has a great impact
on the Yatsushiro Sea and removal of both the Arase and Setoishi dams will have a good effecton the revival of the sea and tidal flats environments. When a dam is present, accumulated silt
flows downstream when water is released. Following the opening of the gates, the amount ofwood flotsam and jetsam floating downstream increased, resulting in the negative impact of torn
nets. This is probably because the mountain forests in the upstream areas are not being properly
cared for. It is hoped that if the tidal flats are restored, more young people are able to make a livingfrom fishing.

Toward a Revival of the Entire Watershed
As noted above, the decommissioning of the Arase Dam is the first case of its kind in Asia. The
impacts of decommissioning on the Kuma River and the Yatsushiro Sea, however, will remain
limited as long as the Setoishi Dam, located 10km upstream of the Arase Dam, continues operation.
When both of these dams are removed, the Kuma River will become a Class A river with no largescale dam all the way upstream to the Ichifusa Dam, close to the border with Miyazaki Prefecture,
and a magnificent revival of the ecology and environment of the river and sea, as well as biologicalresources, is anticipated.
The 50-year term of the Setoishi Dam water rights will also expire in 2014. The local fishing co-op
has refused to recognize the renewal of water rights and a resolution aimed at removal of the dam
has made the dam’s decommissioning a possibility. However, since the Setoishi Dam is located on
the outskirts of both Ashikita Town and Kuma Village, there is no resident community that suffers
direct damage from the dam, as in the former Sakamoto Village, and because 70% of the ayu caught
downstream are released upstream of the Setoishi Dam, the number of ayu harvested from the river
has been maintained. For these reasons, the intense activities by residents to demand the removal ofthe dam as seen at the Arase Dam have not occurred in the case of the Setoishi Dam. Nevertheless,up to now, when water was released from the Setoishi Dam, the Arase Dam played the role of a
supplementary dam, adjusting the water volume. The Setoishi Dam has thus relied on the Arase Dam
to some extent, creating a necessity for the operation of the Setoishi Dam to be reviewed when the
Arase Dam is removed.
Even though the removal of the Setoishi Dam may not come about, if hydroelectric power generation
is suspended and the gates opened, albeit temporarily, the flow will be restored and sand and earth will
be supplied to the lower reaches. Thus it is said that by altering the operation of the Setoishi Dam togive increased consideration to ecology and nature, revival of the Kuma River and the Yatsushiro Sea
can be enhanced7. From now onwards, the focus of the revival of the Kuma River and the Yatsushiro
Sea will move to the Setoishi Dam and whether or not it is possible to remove the Setoishi Dam oralter its mode of operation.

Recommendations: Multifaceted Monitoring Should be Conducted
The removal of the Arase Dam is an extremely important case when considering methods for the
future revival of the natural environment of Japan’s rivers, on which a large number of dilapidated<4-2>
4<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

dams exist. To really understand the environmental impacts of decommissioning the Arase Dam, it isnecessary to carefully monitor the environment prior to, during, and after dismantling the dam. Precise
monitoring also provides valuable information regarding necessary conditions to enable a smoothenvironmental revival. However, the Arase Dam is the property of Kumamoto Prefecture, and there isvery little nationwide interest in its removal. Multifaceted monitoring surveys by specialists have notbeen carried out. Inquiries to the official responsible for biodiversity-related matters at the Ministry of
the Environment revealed that the Ministry is simply not aware of the Arase Dam.
Kumamoto Prefecture has set up a Specialist Follow-up Committee on the Arase Dam Removal,
which is proceeding with deliberations to “implement the dam removal safely and with consideration
for the environment while evaluating and verifying the results of monitoring surveys on water control
and the environment with respect to the removal of the Arase Dam.” The scope of this committee
however, is limited to monitoring in the Arase Dam removal impact assessment zone, downstream
only as far as the Yohai Weir, which does not include the estuary tidal flats or the Yatsushiro Sea. If
this situation remains unchanged, the only comprehensive survey will be the observations that havebeen continuously conducted by local citizens’ organizations active in opposing the Kawabe River
Dam and demanding the removal of the Arase Dam.
As noted above, the removal of the Arase Dam will have a huge impact on the ecology of the tidal
flats and the Yatsushiro Sea, and the fisher-folks who depend on the marine resources. Considering theimportance of the Arase Dam removal as a case of natural restoration and Asia’s first dam removal,
we feel strongly that a monitoring survey that includes the Yatsushiro Sea should be conducted andthe results made public.
References
Corporate Agency of Kumamoto Prefecture. Kumamoto Prefecture Specialist Follow-up Committee on the Arase Dam Removal(in Japanese).
http://www.pref.kumamoto.jp/site/kigyoukyoku-hp/ (Last accessed on April 20, 2012)
Corporate Agency of Kumamoto Prefecture. Removal of the Awase River Dam (in Japanese).
http://www.arasedamtekkyo.hinokuni-net.jp/ (Last accessed on September 18, 2013)
Kimoto Seiko et al. 2011. Revive! The Clear Flow of the Kuma River: The Struggle of Fisherfolk against the Kawabe River Dam andthe Arase Dam (in Japanese).

Sayoko Iinuma (Global Environmental Forum)

1. To view pictures of the project site, visit: http://www.arase-dam.jp/shinchoku/index.html
2. Ayu that swim downstream to spawn in the fall
3. According to the morning edition of the Kumamoto Nichinichi Shimbun Newspaper of October 27, 2002
4. From a hearing with Mr. Seiko Kimoto (Chairman of the Sakamoto Village River Fisher-folks’ Union) conducted on October 23, 2011
5. From a hearing with Ms. Shoko Tsuru on October 23, 2011
6. Since water cannot be used for power generation unless the water rights are renewed, the continued existence of the dam became
untenable.
7. From a hearing with Ms. Shoko Tsuru on October 23, 2011

<4-2>
5

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

4-3. The Past, Present and Future of Japan’s River Development
Japan’s Once Abundant Rivers
There was a time when Japan’s rivers were as abundant as the Mekong River. Fisher-folks on the
Kawabe River in Kumamoto Prefecture, for example, recall that in the season when migrating fish
returned to the river, the surface of the water appeared to turn black with the heads of vast numbers offish swimming upstream1. However, the ecology of Japanese rivers was dealt a devastating blow by
the river pollution that accompanied Japan’s rapid economic growth and industrialization beginning in
the 1960s, and by the 3,000 or so dams constructed on rivers throughout the nation.

History and Changes in River Administration
Japan’s River Act of 1896 was enacted for the purposes of water control, and the new River Act of1964 was drawn up to regulate water control and use. The latter introduced uniform management of all
small and medium rivers within each river system, placing Class A rivers2 under national management
and Class B rivers under the management of the local prefectures.
When the River Act was amended in 1997, it incorporated the standpoints of “environmental
conservation” and “reflecting the views of local residents” due to the severity of environmental
degradation and increasing awareness among residents of the need for river development that reflects
the characteristics of the local region. However, citizen participation in river management was still
very weak in Japan at the time.
Compared to other countries, Japan was slow to introduce an environmental assessment law,which was not enacted until 1997. Respect for the traditional lifestyles and special consideration
for women and minorities are not required under this law. Since there is also no express provision
for the protection of endangered species, it is not possible to use the law to regulate or restrict dam
construction to prevent damage to habitats of rare animals. Furthermore, deliberations on riverdevelopment plans, where most of the decisions are made, are gatherings of “knowledgeable persons,”
consisting mainly of university researchers designated by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism. This Ministry is also responsible for promoting dam construction. The current
situation is thus that insufficient information is disclosed to the public and there are few forums where
citizens are allowed to express their opinions.

Some Dams are Stopped, and Some are Not
While no large-scale hydropower stations have been constructed in the USA since around the year
2000, and the removal of existing dams for the sake of environmental restoration has already begun3,
the construction of large-scale dams for water control and other purposes is still continuing in Japan.
Resistance by local residents is strong, however, and construction projects are often dogged by heateddebates. The plan to build Hosogo-uchi Dam, scheduled for construction on the Naka River in Kito
Village, Tokushima Prefecture on Shikoku Island, was blocked for 30 years due to an opposition
campaign by local residents, and finally cancelled in 2000. The construction of the planned Kawabe
River Dam in Kumamoto Prefecture’s Kuma River basin in Kyushu was also similarly cancelled due
to strong local opposition.

<4-3>
1

<Nature and Our Future: The Mekong Basin and Japan>

At the same time, the construction of other dams is proceeding. One example is the Yamba Damin Gunma Prefecture. This dam, planned for the Agatsuma Ravine, renowned for its scenic beauty,
is a 116m-tall gravity-type dam for the purposes of water control and clean water supply with aconstruction budget of 410 billion yen (approximately USD 4.1 billion) (increased from an original
211 billion yen, approximately USD 2.1 billion). One of the campaign promises of the Democratic
Party of Japan, which wrested power from the Liberal Democratic Party in the general electionof 2009, was to review the Yamba Dam plan, and hopes were high that its construction would becancelled, but this is not what eventually occurred.
The dam project has a long history, beginning over 50 years ago when the plan was first proposed.
The local residents, exhausted after decades of strong opposition spanning three generations since theoriginal proposal, finally collapsed and approved the plan. As well as being the habitat of the giant
salamander, one of Japan’s national protected species, there is also concern about the deterioration ofwater quality and other problems in the local area due to the dam reservoir. Naturally, the immense
cost of the project is also an important issue.

River Environment Protection Plans Aiming to Restore Ecosystems
Despite the facts that Japan has now entered a period of population decline, and the greater part ofcurrent public works were planned during the era of rapid economic growth, these projects remainscheduled for implementation with no appropriate review. Japan’s accumulated public debt has now
surpassed the 1,000 trillion yen (approximately USD 10 trillion) mark4, but as we see with the Yamba
Dam project, Japan is still attempting to proceed with this kind of enormously expensive development on
the premise that the demand for water will continue to increase. The burden of costs for the construction
and maintenance of these excessive facilities will fall on the shoulders of future generations.
On the other hand, public works that do not result in the building of new structures have also begun.
A groundbreaking example of this is the removal of the Arase Dam, now being implemented in thelower reaches of the Kuma River basin in Kumamoto Prefecture5. This is the first attempt of its kind,
not only in Japan, but in Asia as a whole. We are seeing a renewed appreciation for satoyama, andwe are now looking forward to the promotion of river environment conservation plans that will help
restore damaged ecosystems.
References
National Park Service, Restoration of the Elwha River
http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/restorationoftheelwha.htm (Last accessed on September 10, 2013).
Teruyuki Shimazu, 2013, The Yamba Dam is a water source that no one will use, Videonews dot com, interview by Tetsuo Jimbo,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpqqM-eN_JA&feature=youtu.be (Last accessed on September 1, 2013).
The Yamba Tomorrow Association, Problems of the Yamba Dam Project,
http://yamba-net.org/problem/meisou/futan/ (Last accessed on September 1, 2013).

Yuka Kiguchi
1. Report by Ms. Shoko Tsuru (Vice Chairperson of the Kumamoto Nature Interpreter’s Association), December 15, 2012.
2. A river designated by government decree as having an especially important river system from the viewpoint of national landconservation or the nation’s economy.
3. A well-known example is that of the Elwha River in the Olympic National Park, Washington State, in northwest USA.
4. Reported in the Nihon Keizai Shinbun (Japan Economic Newspaper), August 10, 2013.
5. For further details, see BP4-2 Removal of the Arase Dam: Japan’s First Attempt to Dismantle a Hydroelectric Dam and Restore theOriginal River Environment.

<4-3>
2

Information Packet

Nature and Our Future:
The Mekong Basin and Japan
A Mitsui & Co., Ltd. Environment Fund supported project
Publication Date: September 30, 2013
Writers: Sayoko Iinuma, Mayu Ino, Yuka Kiguchi, Fumiko Takahashi,
Toshiyuki Doi, Kumiko Totsu, Satomi Higashi
Cooperation: Sayoko Iinuma, Mayu Ino, Shoko Tsuru, Kazuto Hattori
Editor: Toshiyuki Doi, Madoka Chase Onizuka
Photography: International Rivers, Sayoko Iinuma, Mayu Ino, Mekong Watch
Design & Printing: Ours
Publisher: Mekong Watch
Aoki Bldg 3F, 1-12-11 Taito, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0016 Japan
Phone：03-3832-5034 Fax：03-3832-5039
E-mail: info@mekongwatch.org
Website: http://www.mekongwatch.org/english/