Vientiane Times, Tuesday November 19, 2013, Chareun Sayakoummane

Earlier this month I was privileged to be among those invited to join the fact-finding tour to the proposed Don Sahong Hydropower Project.

The visit was organised by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Lao National Committee of the Mekong River Commission so that concerned parties ??? from several countries and with differing viewpoints on development and environment ??? could see the controversial project for themselves.

This demonstrated the Lao government???s ???transparent development approach???, ??for which they must be congratulated, rather than condemned for what some critics have called a project ?????selling??? exercise.

From the tour, I learnt there are two main burning issues that are clouding the development. First is the ???legal??? interpretation of Hou Sahong with regard to what is the ???mainstream??? of the Mekong River. The second, and most important, is the project???s potentially adverseimpact on local and riparian fishery.

As a layperson, I would not wish to delve into legal issues, however I believe an understanding of Lao language, in particular the meaning of names given to the water bodies in this part of the country thousands of years ago would shed light on the issue.

The word ???Hou- ????????? is a Lao word describing a small and long underground hole, also implying that it is found in great numbers. (Some have suggested changing the regional name from ???FourThousand Islands??? to ???Four Thousand Hou???).

Hou is therefore not a river (Nam or Xe- ????????? ????????? ??????); it is not a stream (Houay- ????????????); neither is it a creek or a channel (Hong or Khong- ???????????? ????????? ?????????). Based on the meaning of the word, the Hou Sadam, Hou Xang Pheuak and in particular Hou Sahong, where the dam will be built, are surely and unmistakably not the mainstream of the Mekong.

As for the second issue, I look at this as someone who grew up on the Mekong some 500 kilometres upstream from Hou Sahong and I wholeheartedly share the concern about fishery and fishing.

On the fact-finding tour, I met 80-year-old Mr Than, the oldest resident of Ban Hua Sahong, who was born and raised and lived his entire life on the island. Mr Than told me that fish stocks have been on the decline for decades, more so in the last 15 to 20 years. In his younger days, he would set one ???lorp???- a bamboo trap – on the bank of Hou Sahong overnight, and in the morning it was packed with so much fish he could not lift it up, he had to drag it up the bank.

\Asked if he could estimate how many kilos of fish he caught in one lorp, he said, ???I would not know in kilos, but I remember one time there were more than 70 fish of alltypes caught in the lorp.??? He said ???I could not give them away there were so many; one??lorp could catch enough fish for the entire village.??? He said he did sell his catch once at ???one kip per fish the size of my arm.???

Mr Than lamented ???Now the fish are gone???, but he is not sure why. He believes it is because too many people are fishing and too many peopleare paying high prices for the fish. He also said another main reason for the decline was that ???Cambodians did not let the fish come up. They caught them all.???

Even more concerned about fishery are the villagers of Ban Hang Sadam, whose lives depend on the fishing grounds mainly along HouSadam. Unlike Mr Than, they do not have 80 years behind them, but they totally agree about the present state of the fishery.

The villagers are no longer allowed to set up ???li??? traps – bamboo structures with microsize netting spanning the entire width of Hou Sadam – as they did in the past. The use of throw nets and gill nets is still permitted, but their catch is only enough to make family meals, not to sell.

The Hou Sadam has been cleared of traps and obstacles to fish migration as part of a trial as a ???natural fish ladder???. This demonstration project has been ongoing now for almost a year.

According to Mr Chaloun, who has 26 years of involvement in fish studies in this area, ???The initial result is promising. The fish like their new highway.???

As for the future, most villagers have mixed feelings and are concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed dam. But they believedevelopment is inevitable and will benefit not just the local people but the region and the entire nation.

Everyone agrees that fishing is getting harder, and will not be sustainable. They say some fishermen are taking big risks for small catches. Changing their way of life from relying on dwindling naturalresources to more sustainable practices will not be such a gamble. As part of the project???s livelihood restoration requirement, they will be able to do aquaculture, and undergo other livelihood skills trainingin different fields. According to Mr Than, ???It cannot get worse.???

In conclusion, the fishery in the lower Siphandone area is beyond the point of no return. The way forward will have to involve cooperation between the two governments and joint implementation of drastic measures to save the fishery. Perhaps the developers of the Don Sahong project would be willing to finance trans-borderresearch and regulation.

If the neighbouring countries are really concerned about fishery in the Mekong, they should support the dam. Green activists like International Rivers should also lend a hand and come up with support for real solutions instead of fearmongering words.

–Chareun Sayakoummane lives in Sokpaluang village and works for a local registered company called Chareun & Associates, of which he is a founder. The core business of the company is social and environmental impact assessments for hydro projects throughout Laos