A look at the legal issues
surrounding the controversial Don Sahong hydropower project.
The National Assembly of Laos
recently approved the concession agreement for the 260-megawatt Don
Sahong hydropower project, with construction expected to begin before the end
of 2015. The controversial hydroelectric project is currently the focal point of
discussion surrounding development of the Mekong River given the potential
negative impacts of hydropower on other sectors of the
water-food-energy-livelihoods nexus.
It is worth emphasizing that Laos
has the right of water utilization, which is considered a legal right. Being a
land-locked, mountainous country, Laos has few options to diversify its energy
sources. The proposed Don Sahong hydropower project, therefore, is critical
part of the Laos government’s hopes to transform the country into “the battery
of Southeast Asia,” with revenues generated from exporting power to neighboring
countries. The Lao government believes that the hydroelectric energy program
will be a source of income for fighting poverty, thereby achieving the
so-called sustainable social and economic development of the country.
Legally speaking, the watercourses
belonging to the fluvial territory of a riparian state are subject to the
sovereignty of that state. The right of water utilization, therefore, has
always been defined with reference to the sovereign rights of states over its
territories. The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted by
the General Assembly in 1974, Article 2(1) provides that: “Every State has and
shall freely exercise full permanent sovereignty, including possession, use and
disposal, over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities.”
While recognizing the right of water
utilization for Laos’ economic growth, the other three neighboring countries in
the lower Mekong – namely Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam – along with a large
number of advocacy groups have repeatedly called for the Don Sahong hydropower
project to be halted with their hope to protect the future of the Mekong
River’s ecosystem and its people.
The Don Sahong dam is located in a
critical and ecologically unique area of the Mekong River. According to
scientists, the hydropower project will dramatically alter the flow of the
Mekong River and disrupt the migration of fish – to the detriment of downstream
communities in neighboring countries – when it is constructed. The result would
be irreparable damage to the environment.
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam
are all bound by the 1995 Mekong Agreement. Therefore, the obligation to
prevent harmful effects (the no-harm principle) as stipulated in Article 7
needs to be strictly respected. This principle is broadly recognized as a
general principle of international law. Prior to that, it was reflected in the
judgment of the International Courts of Justice (ICJ) in the Corfu Channel
case in 1949, which reads: “every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly
its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States.”
Importantly, the no-harm principle
is a due diligence obligation of prevention, rather than an absolute
prohibition on transboundary harm. This was confirmed by the ICJ decision in
the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay case in 2010, which included the
need to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as part of this duty.
In the case of the Don Sahong
hydropower project, other parties have remained concerned over the
environmental impact assessments provided by Laos. According to the
environmental group International Rivers, a technical review of the Don Sahong
Dam’s 2013 EIA reveals critical knowledge gaps and inaccuracies, which call
into question the credibility of the report. This organization recommends that
the project developer be required to carry out a new EIA for the Don Sahong dam
– which includes transboundary impacts – before any decision is made over
whether to build the project.
Beyond this, the much-criticized Don
Sahong hydropower project has sparked widespread concern among neighboring
countries and human rights groups, who say that it will put at risk the food
security and livelihoods of tens of millions of people, especially in
Cambodia’s lowlands and the Tonle Sap Great Lake – the world’s most productive
inland fishery – and the Mekong Delta, Vietnam’s “rice bowl” and home to nearly
19 million people. Accordingly, the rights of people living in the lower Mekong
– including the right to life, the right to the highest attainable standards of
health, and the right to food, which has recognized by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights – are violated.
Environmental protection, especially
in the case of the utilization of watercourses, is linked with human rights
law. As Judge C.G.Weeramantry, former vice-president of the International Court
of Justice, put it: “The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part
of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine quo non for numerous
human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself. It is
scarcely necessary to elaborate on this, as damage to the environment can
impair and undermine all the human rights spoken of in the Universal
Declaration and other human rights instruments.”
Equally important, it is worth
emphasizing that the Don Sahong hydropower project threatens the way of life of
indigenous people in Cambodia – the Kuoy. Owing to their unique status under
international law, indigenous peoples enjoy indisputable rights to
self-determination and governance of natural resources, and rights to
participate in decision-making processes in matters that would affect them or
their territories and resources. In 1973, a decision of the Superior Court of
Montreal (Canada) granted interlocutory relief to indigenous and Inuit
communities, and halted the James Bay hydroelectric project on the grounds that
it would impede their traditional activities.
In the case of the Mekong River, the
fish and the natural flow of this river are a critical component of indigenous
Kuoy life, which will be affected by the Don Sahong hydropower project when the
dam is constructed. Given this, the rights of the indigenous Kuoy here must be
respected seriously by all parties.
Viraphonh Viravong, Laos’s vice
minister of energy and mines, once said: “There is
no question of Lao PDR not developing its hydropower potential. The only
question is how to do it sustainably.” In saying that, he himself admitted that
the balance between economic growth and sustainable development needs to be
seriously taken into consideration.
In the Gabcikovo v. Nagymaros
case, in his separate opinion Judge C.G.Weeramantry stated that: “The Court
must hold the balance even between environmental considerations and the
developmental considerations raised by the respective Parties.” Similarly, in
the Suez and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. The Argentine Republic case,
Tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
(ICSID) declared that: “Argentina is subject to both international obligations,
i.e. human rights and investment treaty obligations and must respect both of
them equally.”
With respect to the Don Sahong
hydropower project, an energy strategy that depends on building these hugely
expensive and destructive dams across the Mekong River will wipe out the
resources that rural communities depend upon for their lives and economies.
Therefore, continuous efforts must be made by regional leaders to move towards
improved energy planning and more sustainable energy options to ensure the
future of the Mekong River.
Do Viet Cuong is a PhD Candidate in
International Law at The Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies (IHEID) and University of Geneva, Switzerland.
No comments:
Post a Comment