That's a very very difficult question, because there is not one universal answer.

The problem is : now, we know that most of what we build can have a huge negative impact over environment, and we know we will suffer of it one day.

So, the idea of "sustainable development" appear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
This mean that a development project is acceptable only if it preserve long term needs of the population, and for sure, this can be a "brake" to many development project.

But what about a development project that will make life better for people during 20 or 30 years, but that would also make things worse than the current situation after 30 years because of pollution or any negative impact over natural ressources that we need to live? Think about your children's future life, not only yourself.

As i ever said on this forum, "good development" is not always what it seems to be. Very often an idea or a project looks good at first view, but when you think carefully about it, consider the overall "goods and bads" of the project, you discover that the project mean more "bads" than benefits. In the past, we didn't have the knowledge to identify the negative effects of a "development project" before observe those consequences. But now, developped countries have expericence, they begin to realise their mistakes, and begin to be able to anticipate the problems.

In this situation, it's very intresting to have environmentalists who consider those questions and can influence the choises, technical and political decisions of development.

If the project is "not too bad', the environmentalist can propose/impose some complementary measures to reduce the negative aspects of a project. Of course, the immediate profitability of the project will be reduced, but the most important : the project would be acceptable even with a long term point of view and really benefit to the country and population.

If the project is really too bad, because the long-term negative effects are really too strong, the project will be blocked and it would be a very good thing, because at the end, the project would not have been "development project" but a "against development project".

The countries that start their development now should not copy the mistake of "developped countries" but on the contrary benefit from their experience, even if this make the development projects more complex and expensive.

But the problem is that some environmentalists do not accept ANY impact of human over nature. This mean they would do not care about the benefits for human... they will try to block the project as soon as there is a little impact over environment... let's say they will try to block ANY human project. We can call those persons "environment integrists", and i don't think their behaviour is good for humanity.

Everything is a question of balance. We know now that every development project can have bad impact over enviromement, and that we will have to support the (very bad) consequences one day. So it's good to have people to force us to improve the development projects to minimise the negative consequences, or even block the project if it reveals definitly too bad impact over environment, and think about alternative and better development solutions.

But it's not good if those people block every development project, just because they want to preserve 200% of nature, and don't care about people real living conditions. Such person would maybe like that every people on earth live just like animals... we cannot accept this.

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 14:36, 2007-09-04

sorry, i`d like to say appropiate area

Admittedly, nothing is perfect on earth. Good and bad things always come together. The matter is if it would be good than harm, then it would make sense to go ahead. 
The NGOs claimed that the development of small and medium size hydropower schemes is under threat in Laos because some of them would displace, for example in Nam Theum 2 elctropower dam project 28 households or about 140 people needed to displace or move to new place. The concerns of NGOs is that they fear that Lao govenment cannot find new place for these people since the north-eastern corner of Laos is still a no-go area because thousands of bombs dropped by the US air force still remain unexploded.
I think, the NGOs have really not good reasons, they know Laos not so well. Our population is small, but our country is quite big compared to Singapore.  These people can be moved to another place easily. It seems to me they are useless in our country. They just try to make things more difficult when it comes to Lao society development, although they know Laos is poor country. They still want Lao people become poorer and poorer. I really don't understand  

Everything is a question of balance...

Block an important development project to avoid displace 150 people is certainly stupid.
But ensure that the displaced people will be displaced in good conditions, that's a clever way to adress the problem.... and displace people is not as easy as it seams to be, because if you change their environment, you'll also force them to change their way of life (with some goods and bads, as always)... and changing their way of life can make them loose their roots and can cause many social trouble (people victims of alcohol, drugs, delinquences, diseases... ). I've read some studies about this made by both farang and lao scientists (not environmentalist NGO's). But for sure, there is a lot of place in Laos and if things are made carefully, displace small populations in good conditions is certainly possible.

Everything should be studied case by case to take the best decisions.
Foreign experts can bring their experience about such projects, experience they have gained from other projects in the world
Lao people can bring their knowledge of local specificities, people needs, lao environment...
And by making those people working togather, sure the best decisions will be taken for Laos.

"Reasonable enviromnentalists" can just help lao people to avoid taking some decisions that they could regret in a few or many years.

But i agree with some of your comments: people who don't care about the benefits for lao people have nothing to do in this affair. But don't forget one thing: there is 2 kinds of people like this:
- "environmentalist integrists" who would not accept any tree to be cut or animal to be kills... ready to do everything they can to preserve 200% of nature
- but also "economic growth integrist": people who just want to earn money by any way, and don't care the consequences of what they do for other people, especialy for people living near their project. Money for important development projects in Laos often come from other countries or foreign companies. And they do it because they can make some profit with the project... some of them don't care at all if the project really benefits to lao people or not. They don't care pollute (respecting the law or not), they don't care about "unexpected consequences", they are also ready to corrupt officials to make their project accepted... Laos should be very carrefull with such companies/persons/countries.Those people too have nothing to do in Laos: they sell dream, but when the dream become real, you discover that's it's a nightmare!!!!

For my part, i just want the best for Laos... the best for today, but also the best for tomorow. I know my country well, i'm intrested in the many problem we have to face (some caused by "development"). I discovered Laos a few years ago, and i discovered a country certainly poor, but also preserved from many many problem we have in "developed country", and i think Laos should try (and can) develop but also do everything possible to avoid those problems at the same time. This mean Laos should follow it's own way. Of course it'much more difficult than just copy others, but it's clearly what Laos should do to get the best future. Moreover, just 'copy' other would leave Laos always "behind", because others progress too.

Let's invent this own way togather ;)
I'm very sorry that i don't speak better English or Lao, because i feel many people on this forum don't understand what i mean. It seems my explanations in english are not clear and complete enough to convince them...

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 16:42, 2007-09-05

Sabaidee sahai and pee nong

I believe Hydro-plant will bring light and prosperity for LAO. To say if we built this plant in that area will affect the life of lao residents who live in the perimeter of the power plant....how many of them....more than 100. I think before the power plant is on the construction map, the people in those villages must live in darkness, no electricity, and in poverty. Now they were moved to a new place with Sattelite TV and electricity then you see their life is improving....far more better to live in the dark. If a person says he enjoy living without tv, without electricity and prefer candles rather than fluorescent lamp, I think he lied.

The 'environmental movement' is just another manifestation of the false consciousness of the post-industrial urban middle classes who seek to lay their shame upon the impoverished masses of the world, the same masses that they have forgotten through the performance of their lavish consumer lifestyles and ideological obsession with image, divorced from any relationship to the material means of survival. Human advancement is a product of the ruthless exploitation of natural resources and the constant search for new and inexhaustible sources. The lives that are spent in this search are the price paid for the survival of humanity, a viral organism with no symbiotic relationship to this planet. The inevitable path of this progress will lead us into space, searching for new hosts. We have already imagined it, we only need now to act.

Hey! You cannot angry someone belonging to the "rich" world from polluting too much, being a high-energy consumer,
and at the same time angry him for changing his mind, becoming aware of the big problems caused by the way of life in his country, and trying to dissuade other people from following the bad exemple of his country.
If you really decide to angry those people, you have to choose one of the 2 reasons, but it cannot be for both.

And about going to another planet to exploit it once Earth Planet would have been sterilised by humans, i'm affraid we will have to wait many decades or centuries before it would be possible... too late. And even if we can do it, is it really the purpose of humans to destroys living planets one by one to survive? can we be proud of ourself if we just live like that?

I said i think developing hydroelectricity is a good choise for Laos, because the country need to develop, and hydroelectricity is certainly one of the "less bad" solution to produce energy. I agree also that some enviromentalists, who just want to block every project, don't have acceptabe behaviour.... but don't forget also that if no-one would point out the dangers and bad effect of such projects, the electricity companies would build them without trying to correct the bad effects, without caring about displacing the population in good condition, without protecting the land arround the dam, etc...

If so many necessary and convenient accompaniement measures are taken in the case of NT2 projects, it's precisely because many people pointed-out the potentialy bad impact of the project upon nature and population living around the future dam. So Laos goverment imposed to spend 10% of the cost of the project for accompaniment measures, to make the project acceptable for population, and make local people realy benefit from the project. But what would have been the project if no-one would have identify the dangers and warn about them? Probably a disaster for local people, because industrials would have kept those 10% of the cost for them.

The world is not just back and white.... same for people... by listening some of your comments, seems that the only question is "should lao build more hydropower station or not?" and that the only possible answers are "yes" or "no". But things are much more complex, because the real question is "How Laos can build more hydropower stations, in a way that maximise the OVERALL benefits for lao people (not only thinking of money profit)?" and "Where is the limit between an good hydropower project (that should become real) and a bad one (that should stay one the paper)?" Hey! you cannot answer such questions with just a "yes/no" answer.
To get and answer to such questions, you need engineers, politics, sociologists and.... enviromentalists. If you can find all those skills in Laos, just use them.... if you cannot, you have to take them from other countries.

Moreover, the question is much larger than hydropower station, because you can ask the same question about every "development project" in Laos.

-- Edited by paris_vientiane at 10:27, 2007-09-06

We should use candles and oil or narm mun kad lamp so the activits who agaisnt LAO happy. kakakaka TAY TIEN TAY KARBONG AW DER POR MEA OY.

Greeting from Laos,

I really agree with many who mentioned earlier that if we entirely follow what environmentalists want we would live like animals. Nevertheless, we do listen to them so that we can improve our environment as some environment agencies are also reasonable, helping how to reduce the impact from the plant in particular cases. 
 
Yes,  we are for hydropower plants which would make our country prosperity in the future. That is the only answer. 

Regards,
TSP