SOS Selangor had a surprise invitation recently. The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) on March 7 called us to a meeting to discuss our critique of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report of Kelau and Telemong dams. It took the EPU nearly one and a half years to get back to us (our comments were given on Nov 9, 2000). Furthermore, before this, there wasnt even an acknowledgment from the Department of the Environment (DOE) that they had received our comments, which also appeared in Damn these dam EIA reports, they're a joke ( malaysiakini , Dec 2, 2000).
The Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (Coac) and the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP), which are the other two groups to have submitted comments, too, received this same invitation. They, too, did not receive any acknowledgments.
We were even more surprised as to the purpose of the discussion when we were informed that the EIA was passed by its review panel on Feb 24, 2001. So what was the point of discussing our critique then?
We (Coac, CAP and SOS Selangor) suspected that the meeting was a public relations exercise for the expected funder of the project, the Japan Bank for International Co-operation (JBIC), which was also present. It is a JBIC requirement that a voice be given to interested parties to any project they fund; hence the meeting, we supposed. Else, we might not even get a hearing.
Others in the meeting included representatives from the Public Works Department (JKR), Japanese embassy (another factor in our suspicion), and MAB Environmental Consultants Sdn Bhd (the EIA consultant).
Shortcomings
We expressed our surprise that the EIA report was passed by the EIA review panel. It has so many shortcomings.
The report says that their wildlife study was done over a period of two weeks. It acknowledges that this is inadequate and recommends a further two-year study at the minimum.
Their fishery study was done over two two-week periods. They suggest the need for a further one-year study.
The flora study was done on a one-hectare site. But, the recommended study area should be 77 hectares (five percent of the Lakum Forest Reserve area to be drowned). The consultant replied that the area size is subject to different interpretations. We pointed out that his interpretation was one hectare against an expert recommendation of 77 hectares; we were not quibbling about one against five or even 10 hectares. The report recommends further study.
The hydrology study was done only for average water flow conditions. The more critical study of the dry season was not done (how much water can then be extracted; what its impacts downstream are, etc.). There are many other shortcomings (see our complete critique
. Critiques by Coac and CAP are also available). The DOE and the EPU chairperson said further studies will be done.We pointed out that the public could only comment on the EIA based on what is written in the report, not on further studies to be done. It goes against the EIA process to approve the report first and then do further studies. The passing by the review panel must be based on the complete report, i.e., on the same document as what is available to the public. The DOE seemed to agree and said this will be done in future. We shall see.
DOE not offended
Given the many shortcomings of this EIA, we questioned the DOE why they as the first line of defence against bad EIAs could approve it for public perusal. Furthermore, many of the shortcomings go against their own EIA Guidelines for Dams and/or Reservoir Projects . For example, the guidelines require past experiences with other dam projects be cited. This was not done. The EIA happily suggests this and that might happen as consequences of the dams, without recourse to past experiences. And it suggests more studies, without looking at past studies. This is a recipe for forever re-inventing the wheel, or worse, making the same mistakes over and over again.
We asked the DOE why they did not take offence to a report that goes against their own guidelines. They chose not to answer us. It seems that they do not take offence easily. The Bakun and Selangor dams EIAs were even worse and yet approved.
To allay our scepticism, maybe, we were informed that the EIA was passed only with many conditions attached, including further studies, presumably to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. Our scepticism was lighted anew. We said the World Commission on Dams (WCD) authoritative report says that the conclusion can be drawn that only a small percentage of ecosystem impacts that occurred were actually mitigated effectively .
The chair was not satisfied since to him this is a general case, not specific to Malaysia. We contended to him that Malaysia was not well-known for being at the forefront of environmental awareness to take proposed mitigations seriously. But he was not to be easily persuaded by such a contention.
Useless dams
We should have pointed out the example of a dam in Cameron Highlands that is totally useless for hydropower because it is so silted up. Or a mini hydro dam in Sarawak reported two months ago that was useless from day one of operation: the study (or lack of it) did not foresee that there just isnt enough water to generate power. Alas, memory failed us then when it was most needed.
Recently, malaysiakini reported about another mini hydro dam in Sarawak, built in Telok Melano at a cost of more than RM10 million, that failed for the lack of water, too.
From the meeting we got the impression that awareness of the impact of dams on the environment (and people COAC pointed out where the EIA report on the Orang Asli has gone wrong) was rather lacking in some of our officials. The representative from JKR, who gave a presentation on the current water supply situation earlier, thought that dams with its water flow regulation provide a better environment for plants and animals, presumably by eliminating the extreme high and low levels.
He was enlightened that living things adapt to a particular environment, over long periods of time. For example, during dry season low flows, some fish might then lay their eggs. Changing that environment from a flowing river to a static lake could kill that adaptation and thus the fish. Dams in the United States cause two-fifths of fish species to be endangered or extinct. In Germany, three-fourths.
He also thought that dams, by eliminating floods, are doing a good thing, without any qualifications whatsoever.
Sixth extinction
But flooding is a natural way to refresh land fertility. Using artificial fertilisers in its place has shown to have many negative impacts.
Agricultural run-offs from the Mississippi river basin has created a dead zone of thousands of square kilometres in the Gulf of Mexico where life is largely dead. Run-offs have also resulted in birth defects in a wide range of animals, from insects, amphibians, reptiles, to mammals, due to the estrogen (the female hormone) mimicking effects of chemicals. This occurs all over the world, for example, in the Everglades wetlands of Florida. Some of the defects are turning males into female-like behaviour, with undescended testis, and defective penis, and females with deformed uterus. Not to mention the ubiquitous cancer-causing effects of the chemicals.
Probably tired of us listing the negative environmental and social impacts of dams, the chair said we cannot ignore development. It is as if we can destroy the environment at will, expecting no backlash; as if we can stand apart from the environment.
We explained the picture of the environment and humans as the web of life. If enough of the web is destroyed, beyond some critical mass, then the whole web will collapse: us and the environment together. (He did seem to agree to this picture.) It is so serious that scientists are talking of the "sixth extinction" the mass extinction of many species on earth (including humans), because we have so altered the environment, killing rivers, oceans, land and the air.
If the EIA was so bad one might wonder how the review panel could pass it. To understand this we must know that the panellists are selected from the DOEs list of experts. Now, if the government, through the DOE, is neutral about the project under review, this panel works fine.
The trouble is when it is not. The panellist knows this, especially when the chair (presumably from the DOE) directs the review process to such a view. If they were private consultants, whose firms depend on future government contracts, they tend to play ball.
Panellists list
I used to believe that academic experts are the most objective. Not necessarily. They might be too closely connected to the industry, for research funds, for example. Or even for the simple fact that the EIA was written by their friends, as academics are often engaged by EIA consultants. (This is the Enron syndrome. The minders and their charge are too cosily connected in an incestous quid pro quo relationship.) And being a recognised DOE expert, they can put it on their curriculum vitae (this goes for private consultants, too). A thick CV helps in the recognition and promotion game. So they, too, might play ball. Else, funding can suddenly dry up, and their names struck off the expert list. The CV becomes less thick.
If the panellists were from other government agencies, well, let's not waste our breath there.
And of course, being brought up as good Malaysians, we do not question authority (as in the meeting, when the chair brushed aside our attempt to discuss the conflict of interest issue in the EIA industry, we kept our peace). We dont want to be difficult , dissenting against the correct verdict as alluded to by the chair. All in all, the panellists play ball.
As Richard Lewontin, a Harvard genetics professor, says of committees and their reports: Tell me who the chair is and who the panellists are, Ill write out their expected report.
(The chair of our meeting was quite evenhanded on the whole, it has to be said. But, of course, there was nothing at stake.)
If any panellist is really unhappy about something, to sooth his or her conscience, he or she could suggest further studies (what else), or some mitigation condition to be set. Mitigation? Well, we know how effective they are.
So, we tried to ask for the list of panellists. But they laugh at us for doubting the panels integrity.
We stand by our scepticism until shown otherwise.
Klang Valley example
We mouth "sustainable development" at every available opportunity, but if there is a contrary model of development staring us right in the face, it is the Klang Valley development, as exemplified by its thirst for water.
In the JKR presentation, a steep graph of increasing water demand was shown. We pointed out that that kind of demand growth, at seven percent per year, means that we have to double supply every 10 years. That is, for example, if in year 2000 demand is 2,500 million litres per day (MLD) then in 2010 it is 5,000 MLD; 2020, 10,000 MLD; 2030, 20,000 MLD, and so on.
Since we have exhausted every river in Selangor (well, the clean ones, at least), we have gone on to divert a Pahang river. After that, may be another one. When we have bled all of them dry, too, what next?
The EIA report actually points the way. It says, If development has gone beyond the carrying capacity of the resource, for ecological reasons, this signals over-development that must be checked. If that is the case, then development must be spatially spread to other states . That is, development has to go to the resource, spreading it to other states. This at once provides for a more equitable development, not merely concentrated in the Klang Valley, reduces people and traffic congestion, and reduces pollution. The EPU can play a role in this.
We also pointed out that we can no longer solve the water problem from the supply management angle; we should now be looking from the demand management point of view how to control demand in the first place, and replacing old leaky pipes.
We do not know what impact our discussion has on our planners. The Kelau dam will go on. (We were told the Telomong is scrapped. Just like that. I've always thought the Telemong was a red-herring from the beginning.) We just hope that some of the points we pointed out stick in our planners heads. And hopefully, the next dam EIA will be better written and researched.
Better still, let there be no more dam EIAs.
DR ROSLI OMAR is an academic interested in the impact of science and technology on society and environment (being bred on the white heat of technology creed himself), be they dams, genetic engineering, or machines. He believes that science and technology, as used at present, are sustaining an unsustainable development the worst of all possible paradoxes.