Sacrava's Political Cartoon: The Mekong

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

On the Mekong, a better way (2)

“Anyone benefitting from upstream schemes will see no need to thank China, while those suffering simply reject its claims, since it has provided no proof.”

December 29, 2010

Qin Hui

China Dialogue

China is shooting itself in the foot as far as river management is concerned – attracting unnecessary suspicion through lack of openness, says Qin Hui.

If it became clear that China has indeed been impounding water during the dry season, then a wave of criticism would likely follow. But there might also be gratitude: while people living downstream of a reservoir normally hope it will prevent flooding and relieve droughts, in certain circumstances they actually desire the opposite.

Evaluating the impact of a reservoir is complicated. Not only are there various ways of operating a dam, but one particular scheme can also have different consequences for different stretches of the river. China and downstream nations may have competing interests, but there are also conflicts of interest between the downstream nations themselves.

For example, the 2008 floods on the Vientiane plains in Laos and the drought on the northern Mekong have both resulted in complaints that China’s reservoirs are making the changes in river level more extreme – flood peaks are higher and dry periods drier.

But in Cambodia I heard a different story. There, the Tonlé Sap Lake relies on seasonal changes in the level of the Mekong. In flood season, water flows back up a tributary to fill the lake which, in turn, rises to cover a much greater area. The floods carry nutrient-rich sediment, providing nourishment for the unique strain of high-stalked rice that grows there, and the higher waters allow fish populations to migrate upstream and breed (this is one of the world’s largest freshwater fisheries). In the dry season, the water flows back out into the Mekong, the lake shrinks and the locals get out of their boats to collect the fish stranded in traps and harvest the now mature rice And so the lake is known as the land of rice and fish.

This semi-aquatic traditional way of life and the unique seasonal ecosystem both rely on the rise and fall of the Mekong. Unlike those living on the banks of the river in Laos, the people here worry that the flood waters won’t come or that the river will remain in full flow during the dry season. Here, they complain that the changes in the level of the Mekong have been too small – the lake doesn’t rise enough, meaning the water doesn’t reach all of the rice, while in the dry season water levels are too high and much of the rice harvest is lost.

Add in the impact on fish migration, and the land of rice and fish isn’t as abundant as it used to be. Locals are earning less and both the way of life and the ecosystem are under threat. Some point the finger at China’s reservoirs, blaming the impoundment of flood waters and the release of water during the dry season.

I explained to the people I met that I had no idea what China’s reservoirs were actually doing and therefore didn’t know if they could be blamed or not. But I could be sure that these complaints contradicted the ones I had heard in Laos: either of the charges could be true, but not both at once.

If China is responsible for the problems in Thailand and Laos, then we need to look at changes in rainfall patterns and the flow of tributaries such as the Kong River and Tonlé Sap itself to explain the woes at the lake: they cannot have anything to do with China. It could also be possible that both sets of problems are driven by local changes and that China’s reservoirs are innocent on both counts. But a firm conclusion requires an examination of the region’s hydrology and data on the operation of China’s reservoirs.

Only abuse

This brings us to a deeper issue. If it were true that China’s reservoirs were making changes in water level more or less extreme, in either case there would be advantages and disadvantages. And, by rights, China should – in amongst the complaints – be hearing words of gratitude. If Laos and Thailand are complaining about more extreme changes, Cambodia should be thanking China. And vice versa. But there are only complaints. Is this simply anti-China bias at work?

In fact, I believe the problem stems from claims in certain Chinese quarters that the country has “no impact” downstream. This means that anyone benefitting from upstream schemes will see no need to thank China, while those suffering simply reject its claims, since it has provided no proof. Is there evidence for their complaints? No – because China has not published data on what is actually happening at the reservoirs, making it impossible to objectively evaluate that “impact”. And if “evaporation” is then brought up, they may simply conclude they are being lied to.

For example, everyone knows that natural drought has played a role in the drying up of the Mekong. But how did China’s reservoirs respond? The authorities refuse to say. Maybe the country deserves thanks for releasing water (even if the drought was so severe that this action didn’t help). And if it was impounding water, well then it can hardly refute the complaints. But refusing to say one way or the other means that China is either losing out on the thanks it deserves from Cambodia, or failing to provide the evidence necessary to counter complaints from Thailand and Laos.

The evasiveness of the authorities over reservoir operation means that, if China is doing something good, nobody knows about it. But it cannot hide any harm that it does and will be suspected of causing harm it has nothing to do with. What sort of strategy is that?

Furthermore, some parties appear to think that other nations work like China – that the entire country will stick to the official line and so you only need to worry about the official stance. I once heard an employee of a Chinese-funded firm complain: “Their government isn’t saying anything, what are the NGOs and media doing going on about it?” But these countries work differently – public opinion and official statements play complementary roles, with the public saying what the government is not able to say in order to apply pressure and leave the authorities room to manoeuvre.

But in China, we argue that diplomacy is too important to be left open to public debate and keep a lid on comment. If this means China cannot use public opinion to strengthen its voice internationally, so be it. But if the country applies this view overseas, believing that all it needs to do is win over government officials while public opinion can be ignored or fobbed off, the results will be poor. Western diplomacy often takes a tough line with foreign governments but is softer with public opinion. In China, we used to joke that our officials were scared of foreigners, while the foreigners were scared of us. Maybe we should remember this when we are the foreigners.

Qin Hui is professor of history at Tsinghua University

On the Mekong, a better way (1)

Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Qin Hui
ShanHerald.org (Burma)

Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing’s response.

“It is impossible for a large reservoir to have ‘no impact’ downstream. The right question is: what kind of impact?”

The Cambodian prime minister is in China’s good books. In a recent – and friendly – speech, Hun Sen said that this year’s record low water levels on the Mekong River have been caused by irregular rainfall triggered by climate change and that linking it to the construction of Chinese hydropower dams is misguided.

On November 18, when reporters asked China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hong Lei what he thought of Hun Sen's remarks, he said: "China and downstream countries are good neighbours and our development in water resources exploitation on the Lancang-Mekong River is fully consistent with the interests of those countries along the Mekong River. As a responsible upstream country, China has always attached great importance to environmental and ecological protection during the development of water resources on Lancang River and fully considered the concerns of downstream countries.”

Two days later, however, the Washington Post published an article saying experts are predicting China's dam construction on the Mekong will devastate the lives of millions of people who rely on eating fish from Cambodia's inland lake, Tonlé Sap – something Cambodia has not criticised Beijing over. The article says: "The perennial question about China's rise is: when will Beijing be able to translate its cash into power. In Cambodia, it already has.”

Whatever the Cambodian president says, international concerns about China’s dam-building activities on transboundary rivers have clearly not gone away. And Chinese scholars continue to debate the issue. Here, in an in-depth, three-part essay, professor Qin Hui of Tsinghua University offers his views.

China’s hydropower development on the Lancang River (known as the Mekong once it leaves China’s borders) has prompted criticism from countries downstream in south-east Asia. In particular, extremely low water levels seen on stretches of the river during this year’s drought in south-west China, triggered intense media scrutiny in countries including Thailand and Laos.

Speaking at a press conference in March, an official from China’s Thai embassy responded to the outcry by repeating the usual refrain that “outflow from China into the Mekong only accounts for 13.5% of the volume at the river mouth”. He pointed out that the surface area of the reservoirs behind China’s three dams on the river – at Manwan, Dachaoshan and Jinghong – is very small and results in negligible evaporation, while hydropower generation does not actually consume any water and therefore has virtually no impact on the river. And so on.

On a recent research trip to south-east Asia, I heard frequent complaints that China’s hydropower development is causing all sorts of environmental problems downstream. There was no – or at least not enough – evidence for many of these claims, a point I constantly put forward. But I still find China’s official response inappropriate, not to mention ineffective at clarifying the true situation. In fact, this stance could easily be used against China, as it gives the impression the country is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of its critics – particularly given that the statement made in Thailand was written not by the embassy, but by China’s hydropower authorities.

First, let’s deal with the claim that outflow from China accounts for only 13.5% (some say 14% or 16%) of the Mekong’s flow when it reaches the sea. This has been a catchphrase for Chinese officials in the past few years and has some validity in relation to problems occurring far downstream, particularly near the river’s mouth. Vietnam’s complaints about seawater intrusion in the Mekong Delta are one example. The bulk of the water in that part of the river does not come from China and so we can legitimately argue there is no reason to point the finger in that direction.

However, for most of the length of the river outside of China’s borders, outflow from China accounts for a much larger proportion of overall volume. For example, at Luang Prabgang in Laos, on average two thirds of the river water has come from China. So we cannot claim that the problems in these places have nothing to do with China. The floods around the Laos capital of Vientiane in 2008 and the historically low water levels seen in certain areas this year all occurred on stretches of the river where most of the water comes from China. In these cases, there is no sense in pointing out that China accounts for only a small proportion of the flow at the river mouth.

Drought was of course a contributing factor to this year’s low water levels, but with so many huge dams on the river China needs to back up its claims that the changes in flow were entirely natural. Talk of small surface areas, low evaporation and hydropower not consuming water are transparent attempts to fob off China’s critics. The impact of a reservoir downstream has nothing to do with “water consumption” or “evaporation”, but the impoundment and release of water. Opening or closing floodgates has a huge impact on downstream flow. Otherwise, how could we talk about reservoirs preventing floods and relieving drought?

Of course, the impact is limited to the capacity of the reservoir. And so we talk of dams being able to regulate downstream flow on a daily, monthly, seasonal, annual or multi-year basis. But China has a huge capacity to do this. Yes, only some 14% of the water at the Mekong’s mouth comes from China. But 70% of reservoir capacity in the Mekong Basin is within China – and this will rise to 90% when the Nuozhadu dam (a nine generator scheme under construction in Yunnan) comes into operation. Moreover, all of China’s Mekong reservoir capacity is on the river proper, while other nations have built dams only on tributaries.

Our officials describe the Manwan, Dachaoshan and Jinghong reservoirs as being “of small surface area”. But a reservoir’s effects depend on its volume. Why talk about the area? These three dams are all over 100 metres high, with reservoir capacities of 920 million, 940 million and 1.4 billion cubic metres respectively: in total, the equivalent of three Dianchi lakes.

The Manwan and Dachaoshan dams are said to be able to regulate river flow on a seasonal basis, while Jinghong can do so on a monthly (some sources say seasonal) basis. So at the very least, they can influence seasonal river flow downstream. We can argue about whether that is a positive or negative influence, but to disregard common sense and claim these reservoirs have no impact – and then to muddy the issue with talk of “evaporation” – simply makes China look bad.

Particularly bizarre is the fact that China’s officials for some reason talk of the “three reservoirs of the Lancang”, when domestic media have reported on a much bigger fourth project: the Xiaowan dam. Electricity generation here started in September 2009 and, at a height of 300 metres, it is the world’s highest arch dam. Its power-generating capacity is claimed to be second only to the Three Gorges dam, while reservoir capacity is variously said to be 15.3 or 14.6 billion cubic metres – almost five times the total capacity of the other three reservoirs.

If all the water flowing into the reservoir was impounded – cutting off the river completely – it would still take four and a half months to fill it from empty. And then if a dry period saw river levels fall to half of normal, the release of water could restore normal flow for a full 10 months. You could call that quite a substantial “impact”.

According to the hydropower industry, Xiaowan has the ability to regulate river flow on a multi-year basis and is a “tap” that can ensure hydropower stations downstream – including at Jinghong near the border – enjoy a steady flow of water through both the wet and dry seasons. And yet China’s officials speak of “virtually no impact”. Nations downstream suspect the Xiaowan reservoir is still being filled, since it is so big and the dam only started working in September, 2009. Even a severe drought like the one this year could be exacerbated by a huge reservoir being filled upstream. To determine

whether or not this did happen, we must look at how the reservoir was actually operated. Simply claiming there is no impact at all will fool no one.

Furthermore, we know that work started on an even bigger reservoir – at Nuozhadu – in 2006 and that the river has already been dammed. With a capacity of 23.7 billion cubic metres, this scheme will also be able to regulate river flow over a number of years. Not only is it bigger than Xiaowan, but it is also nearer the border. Once that reservoir starts filling, will China again claim it has a small surface area, doesn’t evaporate much, consumes no water – and has “no impact”?

The inevitable conflict

It is impossible for a large reservoir to have “no impact” downstream. The right question is: what kind of impact? It can be positive or negative, depending on how the reservoir is built and – more importantly – how it is operated. There are myriad ways to run a reservoir but, simply speaking, there are two basic methods:

One is to manage the reservoir with the aim of preventing floods and relieving drought – in other words, positive regulation. Usually this means emptying out the reservoir until flood season and then storing as much water as possible to lower flood peaks downstream, bringing the reservoir to capacity just as the season ends.

During the dry season, natural flow is passed through and supplemented with water from the reservoir to increase downstream flow, bringing water levels behind the dam to their lowest point by the time the next flood season starts. This relieves both floods and dry periods, evening flow out between the two seasons, and is normally welcomed downstream. But it conflicts with the demands of electricity generation and the need to prevent silt accumulation in the reservoir.

The second method of reservoir operation is almost the direct opposite: store clean water and let silt-laden water flow out. Flood waters carry higher levels of silt than regular flow and this settles on the reservoir floor when the water is impounded. To prevent a build up of sediment and maintain reservoir capacity, it makes more sense to allow flood waters to pass through the dam and instead to store water during the dry season, when there is less silt. And as electricity generation depends on the flow and the head – the height of the water in the reservoir relative to the height the water level on the other side of the dam – storing what little water there is during dry season makes sense as it helps keep the reservoir high.

However, this is exactly what downstream neighbours want to avoid and, if carried through fully, exacerbates both flooding and drought. Both the Three Gorges Dam and Samnmenxia dams use this method to varying degrees and have presented it as a great innovation. In reality, it is an obvious way of boosting power generation and maintaining capacity but is completely at odds with the original aim of preventing floods and relieving drought. Severe sedimentation – particularly at

Sanmenxia – made it necessary. Although experts did their best to come up with sophisticated ways of regulating flow by way of a compromise, the reservoirs’ ability to function as intended has been greatly reduced and, at Sanmenxia, is as good as abandoned.

So the interests of the dam operators (maintaining capacity and generating power) and those of downstream residents (preventing floods and relieving droughts) often conflict. Given this, it is understandable if those operating the dams on the Lancang and populations downstream express differing needs.

A Thai official was quoted in the Chinese press as saying – in response to criticism of China in his country – that, since Chinese dams do not impound water during the dry season, the unusually low river levels were instead caused by a drought brought about by global warming.

This official presumably had not heard the theory that Chinese dams do exactly this. Whether or not these reservoirs are storing water in the dry season needs to be clarified by China’s own authorities. Some say China has actually been doing the opposite – releasing water to relieve drought. And, equally, if that is the case Beijing should make it known. But instead, the country’s officials talk solely of “no impact” and “evaporation”.

Clinton Presses Cambodia on China

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton looks at a wall of faces of those killed by the Khmer Rouge regime during a tour of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, formerly the regime's notorious S-21 prison, on Monday. (Associated Press)

NOVEMBER 1, 2010
By JAY SOLOMON
The Wall Street Journal

PHNOM PENH—U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed Cambodia to remain independent of China on key economic and environmental issues, as she continued a pan-Asian tour aimed at expanding Washington's diplomatic influence in the region.

To support her campaign, Mrs. Clinton told Cambodian officials Monday that the Obama administration was willing to explore new mechanisms through which to retire nearly $450 million in debts accrued by Phnom Penh's Vietnam War-era government.

Mrs. Clinton also told Prime Minister Hun Sen's government that she will seek to raise more funding for a United Nations-backed tribunal set to try leaders of the Khmer Rouge government that committed genocide in Cambodia during its 1975-1979 reign.

The U.N.-supported court is scheduled to begin prosecuting four of the Khmer Rouge's most senior officials early next year, but the process has been hobbled by financing shortfalls and squabbles over the selection of judges.

To date, Washington has provided $5 million to the tribunal.

"We are committed to help Cambodia hold accountable those senior Khmer Rouge leaders most responsible for atrocities," Mrs. Clinton said at a press conference with her Cambodian counterpart, Hor Namhong. "And I want to urge the Cambodian government to offer its full support to the Tribunal."

Cambodia marks the third country stop on the U.S. secretary's seven-nation Asia-Pacific tour, which is aimed at enhancing the nation's presence in a region increasingly under the influence of China's economy and military.

On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton attended a regional conference in Vietnam that was dominated by China's festering maritime disputes with Japan and a number of Southeast Asia countries. The U.S.'s top diplomat urged the attendees of the East Asia Summit to establish an international legal process through which to mediate these disputes, drawing the ire of Beijing, which views all of the South China Sea as sovereign Chinese territory.

Cambodia is among the Southeast Asian nations that U.S. officials privately worry is the most under Beijing's sway. China is among Phnom Penh 's largest single aid donors, and Chinese firms dominate Cambodia's infrastructure sector. Prime Minister Hun Sen has often sided with Beijing on key regional security issues.

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton attended a town hall meeting with Cambodian students in Phnom Penh and was asked her view on the Hun Sen government's relationship with China. The former First Lady said the U.S. encouraged strong relations between Phnom Penh and Beijing but believed Cambodia should hew to an independent foreign policy.

"It's up to your government and your people to determine your own relationships with other countries," Mrs. Clinton told the gathering of 700 students and representatives of nongovernmental organizations. "But I think it's smart for Cambodia to be friends with many countries. Look for balance. You don't want to become too dependent on any one country."

Mrs. Clinton also said Phnom Penh should hold discussions with Beijing to address concerns that Chinese policies are disrupting Cambodia's economic development and harming its economy. She specifically cited China's damming of the upper Mekong River and its impact on Cambodian agriculture.

"I think there also important issues that China must raise with China. For example, I mentioned the Mekong River," Mrs. Clinton said.

Mr. Hor, the Cambodian foreign minister, declined during the press conference to comment on China-Cambodia relations.

Mrs. Clinton also said Monday the Obama administration hoped the Cambodian government would allow the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to maintain an office. Hun Sen's government has indicated it might close the office after disagreements with its chief representative.

Mr. Hor, however, said during the press conference that no decision had yet been made.

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

Environmentalists welcome Mekong commission's call to postpone dams

Oct 18, 2010
DPA

Bangkok - Environmentalists on Monday welcomed a recommendation by the Mekong River Commission to postpone the construction of 11 hydropower dams on the river by 10 years.

The Vientiane-based commission recently published a 200-page report outlining its opposition to the dams on the lower Mekong, South-east Asia's longest waterway that courses through China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Although China has already built four hydropower dams on the Upper Mekong, no dams have yet been constructed on the lower mainstream of the river.

The commission, whose membership includes the governments of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, has advised that 11 proposed dams be deferred for a decade to avoid political and environmental conflicts.

'The proposed developments when under construction and operating have the potential to create; international tensions within the Lower Mekong Basin due to i) ecosystem integrity, ii) reduced sediment and nutrient loads, iii) disruption to other uses of the Mekong and iv) reduced productivity in fisheries and agriculture,' the report said.

The conclusions won immediate endorsement from the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

'We need this 10-year deferral so innovative technology, tailor-made to the unique conditions of the Mekong, can be developed to allow for energy production without high risk to the river and the people dependent on its resources,' Marc Goichot, senior sustainable infrastructure advisor for WWF Greater Mekong, said.

The report warned that any dam built on the lower Mekong would threaten the livelihoods and food security of tens of millions of people in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam.

The commission also warned that dam construction would disrupt the migratory patterns of numerous fish species, including the giant catfish, which is already listed as endangered.

China, which is not a member of the commission, plans to build four more dams on the upper Mekong despite the unknown impact on the nations downstream.

The Stimson Centre think tank warned in August that China's dams could halt up to 70 per cent of the silt that is normally carried by the river to the lower Mekong countries, depriving them of nutrients.

The Mekong, which flows from the Tibetan plateau to southern Vietnam, feeds and employs up to 60 million people in the region.

Study reveals tragic dangers of Mekong dam boom

25 Sep 2008
PeopleAndPlanet.net

A new hard-hitting report exposes the social and environmental damage being done by the unprecedented dam-building boom in river-rich Laos. It is being presented to-day to an official consultation, in Vientiane, on the Mekong River Commission's Hydropower Programme in Vientiane.

The 88-page report by Dr. Carl Middleton, coordinator of the International Rivers Mekong Programme, appeals to the Lao government and donor agencies to change its damming plans.

It wants the Lao Government to:

• explore economic alternatives to hydropower;
• designate the Mekong mainstream off-limits to dam development;
• impose a moratorium on new hydro projects until basin-wide plans are in place; enforce Laos' environmental laws;
• and for dams that proceed, share hydro benefits through life-of-project payments and service provision to all affected people, up and downstream.

Laos 'an opaque, one-party state' has declared it a national priority to spur the country's development through the rapid construction of large dams that export high-risk hydropower to neighbouring Thailand and Vietnam. With six big dams already in operation, seven currently under construction, at least 12 more in the works and development deals pending on another 35, Laos' flood of hydro projects will monopolise the Mekong at the expense of other vital uses, the study warns.

Case studies

Power Surge includes 11 detailed case studies revealing that "Lao villagers are being sold down the river in hydro deals that take their fertile farmland and river fisheries, leaving them without critical sources of food and income. The people of Laos are among the poorest in the region; about 80 per cent are farmers and fishers who have few other means to meet their basic needs and earn a living.

"Big dams don't develop Laos; they destroy invaluable rivers and resources upon which Lao people depend for daily survival" says Shannon Lawrence, Lao Program Director for International Rivers and editor of the report. "Poverty reduction initiatives that support rural communities and promote government accountability need to be prioritized and scaled-up."

According to the report, dam deals appear to be made on a first-come, first-served basis with interested companies, most of which are based in Thailand, China, Vietnam, Russia and Malaysia. The Lao Water Resources and Environment Agency lacks the authority to compel dam developers to pay for the social and environmental costs of their projects or to enforce local law. Laos' biggest hydro project under construction, the French-led Nam Theun 2, has fallen short of promises made by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank that it would set a new sustainability standard for Lao dams, the report says.

One of the most destructive dams highlighted is the proposed Don Sahong Hydropower Project, which would be the first dam built on the lower Mekong River mainstream, one of the six that Laos is proposing. The dam would block the main channel passable year-round by fish migrating between Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

Costly mistake

Mekong mainstream dams - like Don Sahong - would be a tragic and costly mistake, says the report. For only 360 megawatts of electricity, Don Sahong would devastate fisheries that are central to people's food security and the wider economy and undermine the region's growing tourism potential. In a region where wild-capture fisheries are valued at US$2 billion per year and are of critical importance to riparian communities, these dams simply don't add up," says Dr. Middleton.

The Mekong River Commission is a river basin management organization directed by the governments of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam and funded by donor governments such as Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan and Sweden.

In his presentation to the Commission, Middleton will challenge the dam industry's business-as-usual approach in Laos and the wider Mekong Region. International Rivers is also sending the report and recommendations to other international institutions involved in Laos' hydro boom including the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Commenting beforehand he said:"A healthy Mekong River is priceless. It is not simply the provider of economic commodities such as fish, irrigation water, and hydroelectricity. It is also the lifeblood of the region, its history and inspiration. Instead of choking the Mekong with dams, it is time that this tired old development model is replaced with one that celebrates the region's rich cultural and ecological inheritance."

He was supported by the Lao programme director for International Rivers, Shannon Lawrence, who said: "If companies are going to build dams in a one-party state with no free press and little transparency, they have to take extraordinary measures to make sure that environmental and social standards are met. This is the cost of doing business in places where people's rights are not adequately protected by the rule of law. Dam-affected people must be guaranteed compensation for their losses as well as given a direct share of project benefits."

Click here to download full report. See more news from International Rivers at www.internationalrivers.org

Editor's note: Laos has a population of 5.9 million and a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of around US$4 billion. The estimated commercial value of Mekong River Basin fisheries is US$2 billion according to the Mekong River Commission (2005). The Mekong River provides fish, drinking water, irrigation and transport for more than 60 million people in the lower Mekong basin.

Known as the "Mother of Waters", the Mekong River supports one of the world's most diverse fisheries, rivaled only by the Amazon and the Congo. Fish consumption in Laos is estimated to be more than 200,000 tonnes per year or more than 40 kilograms per person per year, while subsistence agriculture, dominated by rice, accounts for about 40 per cent of GDP and provides 80 per cent of total employment

Laos has 18,000 megawatts of exploitable hydropower potential, less than 5 per cent of which has been developed.