Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was not pleased with local NGOs whom he blamed for the delay in getting funding from the Japanese for the Kelau dam water supply project ( The Star , April 22). The NGOs had rejected the dam environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, hence causing the delay, it was stated.

This claim is fallacious and does an injustice to the NGOs concerned.

First of all, SOS Selangor, and the other NGOs, too, were merely doing our duty as provided for by the law. To approve a project beyond a certain size, the Department of Environment (DOE) requires an EIA to be done. The EIA report is then put out to the public for comment. So, we made our comments: It was a bad EIA, sloppily done.

The Japanese funder, Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), presumably read our comments, and comments of the other NGOs too. We were called to a meeting with the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), together with the EIA consultant, the DOE, Orang Asli Affairs Department, among others. Representatives from JBIC, and the Japanese embassy, were there. We again posed our comments. The Japanese must have noted that our comments were not satisfactorily answered, either by the EIA consultant or the government representatives.

Stumped officials

SOS Selangor then attended a technical committee meeting in Bentong, April 15, chaired by a high official of the Public Works Department. We were joined by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). The funders were there again. Again we posed questions and again the Japanese had another opportunity to assess our comments and the governments answers.

For example, we asked, how long could the dam supply water if there was a long drought in Pahang. Nobody could answer, not the chair, not the JKR engineer who gave the presentation of the project (who also gave the project presentation at the EPU meeting), and not the hydrology infrastructure expert from EPU, or any of the Pahang state officials present.

The importance of the question is this: If there was no drought, water could be pumped from a simple weir across the river. A dam is only needed to regulate water supply when there is a drought. The normal design criteria for the reservoir size is the so-called once in 50 years drought severity.

Lets say if the country normally experiences a two-month drought, but the reservoir built can supply water through a six-month drought, then it is a case of over-design.

Given that the area to be drowned  4,090 hectares (compared with 600ha for Selangor dam)  for the Kelau dam is very large, including 1,549ha of Priority I forest reserve (having the most biodiversity), it is important that there be no over-design.

If the three senior officials could not answer that simple question (i.e., how long could the dam supply water if there was a long drought in Pahang), who then?

Again, the Japanese were on hand to see the performance of our officials. They seemed to understand the importance of the issue because, after the meeting, they asked me further about it and wrote down the answer.

Later in my conversation with the EPU expert, he inadvertently acknowledged (when I asked him further about the design) that the government side just accept the design presented to them, i.e., without many questions.

Yet given the conflict of interest in the dam industry  the EIA consultant could also be a dam designer, a project consultant to the dam builder, and also be a subsidiary or parent company of a dam builder  over-design must be looked into.

The EPU expert also acknowledged that this conflict of interest exists. He remarked wryly, If possible they (EIA consultants) want to build dams, too, and not just do the EIA.

Wasted river water

Another revelation from that meeting was that some of our officials seem to have the view that water that reaches the sea is wasted water. Somehow, they believe, water should always be used for something.

At the meeting, an official from the Pahang state EPU echoed what the mentri besar said recently about Pahang rivers being wasted. Presumably, diverting a river to Selangor is one of the uses they have in mind!

We pointed out that rivers carry nutrients and silt. The nutrients nourish plants and animals, either in the river itself or in the estuary and coast. Silt builds deltas and prevents coastal erosion. Without it, expensive coastal protection has to be put in place. Silt nourishes mangroves, which nourish nurseries for fish and other creatures. Coastal fishing catches are proportional to the extent of mangrove forests.

Even flooding, depositing the silt, is useful in nourishing the land naturally.

The chair countered that the to-be-dammed river is only one tributary.

We said the dam can only supply enough water till 2018, a life-span of some 15 years only, given the ever-increasing thirst of the Klang Valley. After that more dams are needed.

The chair let it go at that.

We again stated our objection to the EIA process of providing limited information in the report, which is the only information the public and NGOs are privy to.

There is also the problem of it then being approved by the review panel and subject to more studies which are no longer part of the public review process.

Information should come complete. The public and the review panel should have the same information to guide their judgment.

The chair justified this practice by saying that basic information is already available. The further study is merely for some additional information.

SOS Selangor protested that if the original study was for two years and an additional two-week study was recommended, then we would not object too much.

However, its the reverse where the Kelau study and the additional recommended study are concerned. We asked, if the project went ahead after approval, after, say, RM1 billion was spent, but the further study, taking some time, found some fundamental reason for not recommending the dam, would the dam be halted? I doubt it would.

WWF agreed with our position.

I am sure the funders made their judgment based on our written comments as well as our oral comments in the two meetings (and other meetings with other NGOs). So if they withheld the funding, then the governments side did not do a satisfactory job convincing the Japanese, did they? They shouldnt blame others for their own failure. We, NGOs, merely followed the process laid down by law  the PMs governments own laws. He should instead (to use his oft-quoted phrase back on him) be thankful  to the NGOs.

Further studies

The Japanese must have accepted that the EIA was sloppy because a further study is now commissioned as a condition for releasing the funds.

Actually, I am not sure what this further study is supposed to achieve. Further studies are done to see ways to make a situation better. Yet we already know that 1,549ha of Lakum forest reserve would be gone, and 61 Orang Asli households, and at least 40 Felda settler households would have to move.

It is scientifically accepted, even in the EIA report itself, that even if wildlife managed to escape from the reservoir area, survival is minimal. Flora would definitely be lost.

We know dams kill rivers and their negative consequences. There is nothing much that further studies can do to make the situation better. If the initial study paints a rosy picture of the situation, then as a precautionary measure, further studies might show the situation to be not the case. But in this case, these basic unsavoury facts are well-known.

Now, if the further study is to see how the reservoir size could be reduced, such that the number of people and the forest reserve area affected could be reduced, then it is a worthwhile study. The study might indicate the dam has indeed been over-designed. Else, it might be the case of more study to make it sound good, to lull everybody that indeed the project has been well-thought-out. No amount of further studies could make a project that is flawed right from the beginning palatable.

Well, call me cynical, then, but at the end of the further study, mark my words, the funds will be approved, with the appropriate noises made.

Funding a project by a country usually comes attached with it the condition (may be not in black and white anywhere) that the contractor be from the same funding country.

Remember the Conservative British governments condition for approving 234 million pounds of their overseas aid funding, for the controversial Pergau dam a few years back, that the British firm Balfour-Beatty (which has close links to the Conservative Party) be the contractor? The tie-up between aid and helping ones own countrys contractors is well-known.

Cronyism is not a recent Asian invention. We only expanded it to new heights.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

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, is sustaining an unsustainable development  the worst of all possible paradoxes.