FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2159348800> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2159348800 endingPage "324" @default.
• W2159348800 startingPage "319" @default.
• W2159348800 abstract "The Mekong River in Southeast Asia stands at the crossroads. As discussed in Ambio Special Issue (Kummu et al. 2008), the crossroads is ultimately about the way the river and its abundant resources should be used, with the most heated debate evolving around the issue of large hydropower dams. A relatively pristine river with an estimated hydropower potential of 53 000 MW in the basin, the Mekong forms a tempting source of energy for the growing riparian economies (ICEM 2010; Grumbine and Xu 2011). Yet, the dams are estimated to radically reduce the current benefits derived from the river, including its multibillion dollar fisheries that form the basis for food security and livelihoods for millions of people (Kummu and Sarkkula 2008; Lamberts and Koponen 2008; Dugan et al. 2010; Arthur and Friend 2011). The thematic crossroads thus appears largely as a choice between large-scale, economic-driven water utilization and a more diverse, decentralized use of water-related resources (Keskinen 2008; Kummu et al. 2008; Molle et al. 2009; Lazarus et al. 2011; Stone 2011).We argue that there is also another, methodological crossroads that deals with the most suitable ways to assess the development plans. While this crossroads is much less discussed, the entire debate about the Mekong development revolves very much around such assessments, as their findings are used to justify the development plans. The contradictions regarding the assessments became well visible last April, when the four member countries of the regional Mekong River Commission (MRC) failed to reach a consensus on the first mainstream dam proposed by a MRC member country, namely the Xayaburi dam in Laos (MRC 2011a). Laos insists that the planning of the project is sound and the dam construction can start, followed by a number of other mainstream dams. Other MRC countries of Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam are, however, concerned about harmful impacts, and call for more rigorous assessments—Vietnam even suggested a 10-year suspension of all mainstream dam plans to allow enough time for this. As a result, during the MRC Council Meeting in December 2011, the ministers from the four MRC countries agreed that a further study about the impacts of the mainstream hydropower projects is needed (MRC 2011b).The suggested strengthening of the regional assessment processes has a good chance to become a landmark event even beyond the Mekong, and it can make the Mekong countries the forerunners in cumulative assessment of hydropower dams and other large-scale water development. For after a slowdown in the construction of large dams at the turn of the millennium due to their remarkable environmental and social costs (WCD 2000), recent years have witnessed a renewed interest toward hydropower (Moore et al. 2010). This has been partly thanks to improved planning and assessment processes, but first and foremost due to rapidly increasing energy demand particularly in the developing world. In the Mekong, the combination of high dependency on hydrocarbons and rapid increase in electricity demand—around 8 % per year, one of the highest in the world—has led to a renewed push toward large-scale hydropower (ICEM 2010). Well over hundred large dams are planned to the mainstream and the tributaries (MRC 2010; Fig. 1), making the Mekong the scene for one of the most intensive hydropower developments globally.Fig. 1Existing and planned dams in the Mekong River Basin, with mainstream dams marked with boxes and tributary dams with circles (modified from Johnston and Kummu 2012)Assessing the Impacts of Water DevelopmentThe Mekong has seen a number of regional impact assessment processes of planned hydropower dams and other water development, many of them done by the MRC (Table 1). However, as China is not a member of the MRC, the current regional assessments are focused on the Lower Mekong Basin, and the Chinese hydropower projects are largely seen just as upstream drivers of change. In sum, all major assessments indicate remarkable economic benefits from hydropower, but also significant negative impacts, particularly to the immense fish production of the river. The benefits and costs of the planned dams are also estimated to be unevenly distributed, both within and between the riparian countries. At the same time, the estimates about the magnitude and actual implications of the impacts range widely, thanks largely to differing methods and framings used in the assessments.Table 1Selected regional assessment processes related to the Mekong’s development plansWhen comparing the findings of the different assessments, it is interesting to note that the assessment done directly within the MRC (2006, 2010) seem to have bit different approach than the assessments done more independently (MRCS/WUP-FIN 2007; ICEM 2010). Most remarkably, the MRC assessments tend to downplay the uncertainties related to assessment processes and instead put more emphasis on the controllability of the impacts and the manageability of the identified trade-offs (Kakonen and Hirsch 2009). We suggest that these characteristics may have to do with the dual role that the MRC has, as it seeks to act both as an independent knowledge producer and as a political discussion forum between its member countries. While such dual role is understandable and globally rather common, the problem is that it has resulted in unhealthy practices, and for example, assessment results are commonly subjugated to the political screening by the MRC member states before being published.The situation is, however, changing. Following the consultation process of the Xayaburi hydropower dam, also the riparian countries are now calling for broader assessments, and increasingly question the discrepancies between the assessments. There thus seems to be an obvious need to critically review and partially revise the existing assessments methods, in order to make them more responsive to the needs of regional and national decision making. Building on the review of different assessments presented in Table 1 (see also Keskinen 2008; Sarkkula et al. 2007; Keskinen and Kummu 2010; Keskinen et al. 2012), we argue that the most critical steps in revising the Mekong impact assessment are the following three transformations: from assessments of individual projects and sectors to cumulative impact assessment; from purely technical approaches to more holistic and inclusive analyses; and from separate studies to parallel, comparative assessments that also clearly spell out the uncertainties and risks included.Cumulative AssessmentCurrent impact assessments in the Mekong tend to have a strongly sectoral approach, assessing the impacts of proposed water development separately to water flows, fisheries, livelihoods and economy (see e.g., MRC 2006, 2010). While such an approach provides a logical starting point, it also compartmentalizes the river system into separate units, which are then connected mainly through rigid causal chains. As the river basin in reality forms an interconnected system with complex impact and feedback loops, such compartmentalization leads easily to oversimplified representation of the actual net impacts (Keskinen 2008; Lamberts 2008).The assessments also focus predominantly on hydrological impacts, as these are by far the easiest to estimate. Yet, the debate about the dams is not only about the changes they cause in water levels, but essentially about the impacts to water-related ecosystems and, consequently, to livelihoods and food security. None of the current assessments in the Mekong is, however, able to describe such impacts in a very reliable manner. In addition, most impact assessments focus on project level, looking at the estimated impacts of a certain predefined set of development plans. Yet, in the context of several dozens of water infrastructure projects in both the Mekong mainstream and the tributaries, such separate assessments cover only part of the actual, combined impacts of the planned water development projects.For these reasons, it feels evident that project level, sectoral assessments should be complemented with broader, cumulative assessments looking at the combined impacts of all known development plans that better account for social and economic impacts. Critical is also the temporal dimension of the expected impacts: as the development projects are not implemented simultaneously, also their impacts are felt differently at different time scales." @default.
• W2159348800 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2159348800 creator A5034645065 @default.
• W2159348800 creator A5063932242 @default.
• W2159348800 creator A5072332833 @default.
• W2159348800 creator A5079266139 @default.
• W2159348800 date "2012-04-13" @default.
• W2159348800 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2159348800 title "Mekong at the Crossroads: Next Steps for Impact Assessment of Large Dams" @default.
• W2159348800 cites W1974253802 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W1989803891 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W1991064251 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W1991118213 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W2080132792 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W2117904562 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W2135276779 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W2167325772 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W2176215157 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W2179267237 @default.
• W2159348800 cites W4238691261 @default.
• W2159348800 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0261-x" @default.
• W2159348800 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3357849" @default.
• W2159348800 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22528981" @default.
• W2159348800 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2159348800 type Work @default.
• W2159348800 sameAs 2159348800 @default.
• W2159348800 citedByCount "42" @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002012 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002013 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002014 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002015 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002016 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002017 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002018 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002019 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002020 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002021 @default.
• W2159348800 countsByYear W21593488002022 @default.
• W2159348800 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2159348800 hasAuthorship W2159348800A5034645065 @default.
• W2159348800 hasAuthorship W2159348800A5063932242 @default.
• W2159348800 hasAuthorship W2159348800A5072332833 @default.
• W2159348800 hasAuthorship W2159348800A5079266139 @default.
• W2159348800 hasBestOaLocation W21593488002 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C109007969 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C3018204926 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConcept C91375879 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C107826830 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C109007969 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C127313418 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C151730666 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C205649164 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C3018204926 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C39432304 @default.
• W2159348800 hasConceptScore W2159348800C91375879 @default.
• W2159348800 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2159348800 hasLocation W21593488001 @default.
• W2159348800 hasLocation W21593488002 @default.
• W2159348800 hasLocation W21593488003 @default.
• W2159348800 hasLocation W21593488004 @default.
• W2159348800 hasOpenAccess W2159348800 @default.
• W2159348800 hasPrimaryLocation W21593488001 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W1530902142 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W174257323 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W2025000445 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W226834081 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W2913203604 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W3033565456 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W3070811913 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W3160613240 @default.
• W2159348800 hasRelatedWork W271343173 @default.
• W2159348800 hasVolume "41" @default.
• W2159348800 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2159348800 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2159348800 magId "2159348800" @default.
• W2159348800 workType "article" @default.