Mitchell Talbot a1608715

Word Count: 1540

2012 Mekong E-sim Debrief Report

Environmental Engineering and Sustainability II Mitchell Talbot

Infrastructure projects are crucial to the development of communities on both a local and national scale. However, the preceding administrative processes are often rife with bureaucratic red tape and can take substantial time in producing a decisive verdict on the future of a project. It is the responsibility of engineers to have an acute understating of these proceedings and appreciate the views of the other representative groups involved. The Mekong e-sim provided a simulation of these events and gave participants a sense of the main factors affecting the decision making process. From my own experience in the e-sim I believe the significant influences on the decision making process are: Alliances, International Politics, The Environment and The Media

These factors will be addressed with examples from the e-sim and how they compare to real world projects. Alliances formed within the e-sim seemed to play a pivotal role in the final decision. It was apparent from the early technical paper submissions to the Lancang public enquiry (PI), that both pro (e.g. NPC (The National Planning Committee of the People's Republic of China)) and anti (e.g. TLSF (Tonle Sap Fishers)) opinions on the hydroelectric dam development along the Mekong had formed. Although both pro and anti-groups had valid arguments, anti-development supporters sought out alliances early in the PI with parties that shared similar values. This was often done with simple comments such as The UNDP shares the concerns of the IRN and OXFAM or The IRN agrees with CNMC's opinion. These statements made it easier for anti-development groups to identify those who shared comparable ideals through the vast quantities of submissions. This allowed for the group persecution of pro-development groups to occur, evident in the TLS debate thread where six out of the eight groups involved shared an anti-development stance. These alliances also enabled groups to defend each other when one or more were absent from a debate, for example OXFAM reiterated the stance of the NTV (Nam Theun Villagers) and TLSF groups when they were being misrepresented: The people of Nam Theun and TonLe Sap are strongly against this obtrusive development project. In reality large protest groups too have the power to influence the outcome of development projects. Recently in Bulgaria protests of several thousand people were held in regards to the implementation of natural gas fracking, a potentially dangerous process of extracting gas from rock deposits. These protests led to a parliamentary vote of 166 to 6 to outlaw the dangerous mining procedure1. This shows that if groups come together to form a popular opinion they have the power to pressure decision makers and influence the future of development projects.

Mitchell Talbot a1608715

Word Count: 1540

One of the pivotal arguments throughout the e-sim was the political debate between China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia in regards to the Lancang development. These political debates were a major influence on the final decision. Throughout the PI many governments argued that the development was not beneficial to their respective countries and that China was the only guaranteed benefactor. This sentiment was echoed in the statement made by the Cambodian MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry): It is clear that they (The NPC) wish to ignore the economic and social consequences the development will have on other nations and see only to benefit themselves. These statements from the PI were duly noted by the decision making group CDB (The China Development Bank), evident from this extract taken from the final decision: We (The CDB) can no longer turn a blind eye to the destruction this structure (The Dam) will have on communities along the river, especially those in the lower reach. This demonstrates that politics within the PI had a direct influence on the decision to oppose any development that would adversely affect the economy of neighbouring countries. Real world projects are also hindered by international or state politics. On a smaller scale the allocation of water between states from the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) in Australia is often a source of political unrest. Since the proposed implication of the MDB Plan (a strategy to preserve the MDB ecosystem) in 2010 much interstate debate has occurred over fair allocation of water to agriculture, residential addresses and industry in each state2. This debate is ongoing and as recently as May 2012 all four states involved rejected a draft submitted by the MDB commission, all believing the plan was unsuitable3. This incident further highlights the influence politics can have on the decision making process of development projects or schemes. Since the environmental movement through the 1960s environmental protection has been at the forefront of many political agendas4 and has subsequently had considerable influence over the life of many development projects. As no internationally accepted process has been produced for the valuing of an ecosystem, the environments worth is often subjective to the individual or organization. This renders it near impossible to establish the actual loss obtained when an ecosystem is damaged. Due to these reasons many organizations regard the environment as an invaluable commodity5. During the e-sim many groups such as (but not restricted to) MAFF, TERRA (The Organization Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance) and the CMNC (The Cambodia National Mekong Committee) passionately argued that the Lancang development would cause severe irreversible damage to the lower regions of the Mekong Rivers ecosystem. This prompted these parties to place a higher value on the surrounding environment of the Mekong than that of the Lancang development. The aforementioned is reflected in an extract from the final decision from the CDB: The positive effects of the structure cannot outweigh the possible destruction of the environment. This suggests that due to the environmental concerns raised, the CDB too placed a higher value on the ecosystems of the Mekong than that of the Lancang development. This highlights how influential the environment was on the decision making process during the e-sim. In reality environmental concerns can too influence proposed development projects. In March 2009 Greenpeace halted the

Mitchell Talbot a1608715

Word Count: 1540

construction of coal mine in Poland after it raised issue about the adverse effects it would have on the surrounding environment6. Although more commonly the environment is disregarded in the ambition of monetary gain or the improvement infrastructure. This is evident in the real Lancang dam development which was approved despite the environmental repercussions. A further example of this is the recent proposal of a dam in Ethiopia, which despite considerable lobbying by environmental groups was approved, due to the substantial economic benefits for the country and its people7. Use of the media in the e-sim was influential on the decision making process in a variety of ways. Media groups presented information that would be viewed by the majority of participants in the esim, unlike the posts in the PI which were often buried among vast amounts of text. This is evident with the majority of media articles having eighty plus views compared to those of the PI which averaged below sixty. The medias ability to distribute selected information with ease to the masses greatly increased its influence in the decision making process. The media also had the unique ability to be used as a political tool by participants within the e-sim. Groups had the ability to utilise the media to present their own ideals in a positive manner whilst attacking the credibility of opposing organizations. This allowed groups to express their opinions in a way that would be widely seen and difficult to rebut by opposition groups, influencing the decision making process. The press release by CNN in which the NPC attacks the credibility of MAFF is a prime example of this: we (The NPC) suggest better government management of waterways within Cambodia to create a more sustainable approach to fishing, agriculture and forestry. As media outlets are typically regarded as impartial sources of information the information that they release is believed to be factual and unbiased, however this is often not the case. Many media outlets display bias towards specific causes in an attempt to sway public opinion and meet secret agendas, thereby influencing the decision making process. An example of this within the e-sim was the media releases by the ecological publication outlet Watershed. All media releases by Watershed held an anti-development view and were absent of any disclaimer stating the personal agenda of the enterprise. Media bias can also be seen in real world situations. In 2010 controversial mining magnate Gina Reinhart purchased a large share in both the TEN Network and Fairfax media. This purchase generated speculation that Reinhart was using her influence in the media to promote her controversial political policies in an attempt to gain support for her large mining developments across Australia8. This further demonstrates how the media can influence the decision making process. It is clear that the key influential factors on the decision making process in the e-sim were the alliances formed by anti-development groups, the political stance of governments, the environment and the influence of the media. It should be noted however that the Mekong e-sim project was only a brief simulation of the decision making process and that the outcomes may not truly represent the influential factors of decision making. Due to this any conclusions drawn from the e-sim may not be valid in real world scenarios.

Mitchell Talbot a1608715

Word Count: 1540

References http://peoplesworld.org/fracking-banned-in-bulgaria/ http://www.mdba.gov.au/draft-basin-plan http://theconversation.edu.au/lies-dam-lies-and-water-plans-the-mdb-plan-and-the-states-7430 http://www.epa.gov/history/ http://www.env-econ.net/environmental_economics_1.html http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/victory-polish-coal-mine-cons/ http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2012/03/20123128485291626.html http://www.economist.com/node/160621 http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/gina-rinehart-in-fairfax-191m-swoop/story-fn7kjcme1226258988824