Hydropower development is occurring at a rapid, though controversial, pace in the Mekong. We highlight the role of scientific assessment in shaping the Mekong hydropower debate, taking the strategic environmental assessment of the twelve planned mainstream dams as a case study. While environmental impact assessments are designed as science-based decision-making tools, they have often been criticized in practice as a political means to justify already made development decisions. In this case we demonstrate how the Mekong River Commission, operating in a constrained political environment, has instead used environmental impact assessment as a way of providing political space and opening the discussion on dams to a wider public. The main argument of this paper is that scientific assessment can be politically maneuvered to shape governance alliances at both national and transboundary levels, and to a certain extent democratize decision-making processes.
AlbrechtE, 2008, “Implementing the Espoo Convention in transboundary EIA between Germany and Poland”Environmental Impact Assessment Review29359–365
5.
AllmedingerPHaughtonG, 2010, “Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28803–818
6.
AlshuwaikhatH M, 2005, “Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact assessment failures in developing countries”Environmental Impact Assessment Review25307–317
7.
BairdI, 2009The Don Sahong Dam: Potential Impacts on Regional Fish Migrations, Livelihoods and Human Health (University of Victoria, Victoria)
8.
BakkerK, 1999, “The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong”Political Geography18209–232
9.
BaranE, 2005, “Cambodian inland fisheries: facts, figures and context”, WorldFish Centre and Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Phnom Penh
10.
BaranEJantunenTChongC K, 2006, “Values of inland fisheries in the Mekong river basin”, WorldFish Centre, Phnom
11.
Penh BeierleT CKoniskyD M, 2001, “What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19515–527
12.
BiermannFBrohmRDingwerthK, 2001, “Global environmental change and the nation state”, proceedings of the 2001 Berlin conference on the ‘Human Dimensions of global environmental change’, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam
13.
BinaO, 2007, “A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment”Environmental Impact Assessment Review27585–606
BonifaziARegaCGazzolaP, 2011, “Strategic environmental assessment and the democratization of spatial planning”Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management139–37
16.
BruffG EWoodA P, 2000, “Making sense of sustainable development: politicians, professionals, and policies in local planning”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy18593–607
17.
BurawoyM, 1991, “The extended case method”, in Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolies Ed. BurawoyM (University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA) pp 271–287
18.
CashmoreM, 2004, “The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory”Environmental Impact Assessment Review24403–426
19.
CashmoreMRichardsonTHilding-RyedvikTEmmelinL, 2010, “Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution”Environmental Impact Assessment Review30371–379
20.
ChakerAEl-FadlKChamasLHatjianB, 2006, “A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries”Environmental Impact Assessment Review2615–56
21.
CheXShangJWangJ, 2002, “Strategic environmental assessment and its development in China”Environmental Impact Assessment Review22101–109
22.
ConnellySRichardsonT, 2005, “Value driven SEA: time for an environmental justice perspective?”Environmental Impact Assessment Review25391–409
23.
DelaneyDLeitnerH, 1997, “The political construction of scale”Political Geography1693–97
24.
DewulfACrapsMDerconG, 2004, “How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: a multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes”Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology14177–192
25.
DicksonPAdamsW M, 2009, “Science and uncertainty in South Africa's elephant culling debate”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27110–123
26.
FlyvbjergB, 2001Making Social Science Matter: How Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
27.
FlyvbjergB, 1996, “The dark side of planning: rationality and realrationalitat”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumSMazzaLBurchellR (Center for Urban Policy Research Press, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 383–394
28.
FoucaultM, 1994, “So is it important to think?”, in Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 Ed. FaubionJ D (Penguin Books, London) pp 454–458
29.
FoucaultM, 2008The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979 (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
30.
FreudenburgW, 1992, “Heuristics, biases, and the not so general public: expertise and error in the assessments of risks”, in Social Theories of Risk Eds KrimskySGoldingD (Praeger, London) pp 229–250
31.
GiddensA, 1984The Constitution of Society (Polity Press, Cambridge)
32.
GlassmanJ, 2001, “From Seattle to (Ubon) Bangkok: the scales of resistance to corporate globalization”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space19513–533
33.
GoL, 2011Decree on Environmental Impact Assessment. Government of Lao PDR, Vientiane
34.
HaugaardM, 2002Power (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
35.
HaugaardM, 2003, “Reflections on seven ways of creating power”European Journal of Social Theory687–113
36.
HaugaardM, 2006, “Power and hegemony in social theory”, in Hegemony and Power: Consensus and Coercion in Contemporary Politics Eds HaugaardMLentnerH H (Lexington Books, Oxford) pp 45–66
37.
HaywardCLukesS, 2008, “Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: a dialogue”Journal of Power15–20
38.
HirschP, 2008, “13 years of bad luck? A reflection on MRC and civil society in the Mekong”Watershed1238–43
39.
HirschP, 2010, “The changing political dynamics of dam building on the Mekong”Water Alternatives3312–323
40.
ICEM, 2010, “Strategic environmental assessment of hydropower on the Mekong mainstream”, final report prepared by International Centre for Environmental Management for the Mekong River Commission, October, Vietnam
JasanoffS, 1987, “Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science”Social Studies of Science17195–230
43.
JasanoffS, 1990The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
44.
JilibertoR, 2011, “Recognizing the institutional dimension of strategic environmental assessment”Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal29133–140
45.
JordanA, 1999, “The construction of a multilevel environmental governance system”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy171–17
46.
JordanA, 2008, “The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2617–33
47.
JordanAO'RiordanT, 2001, “Environmental politics and policy processes”, in Environmental Science for Environmental Management Eds O'RiordanT (Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex) pp 63–92
48.
KornovL, 1997, “Strategic environmental assessment: sustainability and democratization”European Environment7175–180
49.
KornovLThissenW, 2000, “Rationality in decision and policy making: implications for strategic environmental assessment”Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal18191–200
50.
KummuMSarkkulaJ, 2008, “Impact of the Mekong river flow alteration on the Tonle Sap flood pulse”Ambio37185–192
51.
LatourB, 1987Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
52.
LebelLGardenPImamuraM, 2005, “The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region”Ecology and Society10(2):18
53.
LevidowLCarrS, 2007, “Europeanising advisory expertise: the role of ‘independent, objective, and transparent’ scientific advice in agri-biotech regulation”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy25880–895
54.
LewisD, 2006, “The science—society interface in the urban environment: a policy perspective”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2715–717
55.
LockieS, 2007, “Deliberation and actor-networks: the ‘practical’ implications of social theory for the assessment of large dams and other interventions”Society and Natural Resources20785–799
56.
LukesS, 2005Power: A Radical View (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
57.
MacKinnonD, 2011, “Reconstructing scale: towards a new scalar politics”Progress in Human Geography3521–36
58.
MarstonS, 2000, “The social construction of scale”Progress in Human Geography24219–242
59.
Mekong Secretariat, 1994, “Mekong mainstream run-of-river hydropower”, main report, December, prepared by Compagnie Nationale du Rhone, Lyon in cooperation with Acres International Limited, Calgary; available from Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Vientiane
60.
MehtaLLeachMScoonesI, 2001, “Editorial: environmental governance in an uncertain world”IDS Bulletin32(4) 1–9
61.
MiddletonCGarciaJForanT, 2009, “Old and new hydropower players in the Mekong region: agendas and strategies”, in Constested Waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, Livelihoods and Governance Eds MolleFForanTKakonenM (Earthscan, London) pp 23–54
62.
MillerFHirschP, 2003, “Civil society and internationalized river basin management”, WP 7, Australian Mekong Resource Centre, University of Sydney
63.
MolleFForanTFlochP, 2009, “Changing waterscapes in the Mekong region: historical background and context”, in Constested Waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, Livelihoods and Governance Eds MolleFForanTKakonenM (Earthscan, London) pp 1–13
64.
MollingaP P, 2008, “For a political sociology of water resources management”, WP 31, Zentrum für Entwicklungsfurschung, Bonn University
65.
MorrisP, 2002, “Steven Lukes on the concept of power”Political Studies Review4124–135
66.
MRC, Mekong River Commission, Vientiane
67.
1995, “Mekong Agreement”
68.
2009, “Hydropower sector review for the joint basin planning process, Basin Development Plan Program phase II”, draft report, February
69.
2011, “IWRM-based Basin Development Strategy for the lower Mekong basin”, final report
70.
NilssonDDalkmannH, 2001, “Decision making and strategic environmental assessment”Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management3305–327
71.
O'NeillJ, 2001, “Representing people, representing nature, representing the world”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19483–500
72.
PartidarioM R, 2000, “Elements of an SEA framework: improving the added value of SEA”Environmental Impact Assessment Review20647–663
RichardsonT, 2005, “Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics”Environmental Impact Assessment Review25341–365
76.
RichardsonTCashmoreM, 2011, “Power, knowledge and environmental assessment: the World Bank's pursuit of ‘good governance'”Journal of Political Power4105–125
77.
RunhaarHDriessenP, 2007, “What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision making”Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal252–14, http://www.saigon-gpdaily.com.vn/special-report/2011/5/92359
78.
SGGP2011, “Lao PM says more study for controversial Mekong dam”, 9 May
79.
SimonH, 1983Reason in Human Affairs (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
80.
SneddonCFoxC, 2006, “Rethinking transboundary waters: a critical hydropolitics of the Mekong basin”Political Geography25181–202
81.
SuhardimanDGiordanoMMolleF, 2012, “Scalar disconnect: the logic of transboundary water governance in the Mekong”Society and Natural Resources Journal25572–586
