A comparison of risk assessments
--- ---
Case study: the risk of the Sambor Dam on the
fisheries in the Tonle Sap Lake
Report Information
Author : Annalieke Bakker, Winnie de Jong, Casper Juijn & Pety Viguurs Disciplines: Earth Science, Biology & Human Geography
Course: Interdisciplinary Project Junior teacher: Anneke ter Schure Date: 22-12-17
Abstract
Hydropower Dams are build at many places on earth, but they are the cause of many complex problems. To help understand these complex problems an interdisciplinary risk assessment has to be developed, specifically for the case of the Sambor dam. This is needed because no risk assessment exists yet that suits this specifically complex case, because the dam is not build yet, and there are many interconnected factor that could increase or decrease the risk. Furthermore, 1.2 people depend on Tonle Sap lake, which is very close to the Sambor dam. Recently, A Chinese company is planning to construct the dam soon and therefore is it crucial to develop a risk assessment for this case. The risk assessment was developed based on three different risk assessment which each include different aspects of the case. Based on criteria analyses several concepts of these risk assessment were used to develop the Sambor Dam risk assessment. The new risk assessment consists of: planning, problem formulation, analysis, risk characterisation and risk management. Each step has consists of different analyses methods to help define risk in this complex case. Further research could be conducted on the specifics of the dam and fish population dynamics in Tonle Sap Lake.
Table of content
Table of content 2
Introduction 2
Case description: Sambor Dam and Tonle Sap Lake 4
Term description 6
Methods 7
Analysis 9
Conclusion & Discussion 15
Literature 17
Introduction
At many places in the world hydropower dams are built to compensate for the increasing electricity demand for our growing world population. At the same time climate change and economic growth are pushing in the direction to build more hydropower dams. In 2014, 3700 dams, each with a capacity over 1 MW, were planned or under construction worldwide (Zarfl
et al., 2015). However, about 21% of out free flowing rivers will be reduced by the construction of these dams (Zarfl et al., 2015). Furthermore, social and environmental problems can occur due to the construction of a dam. For instance, people living alongside the dam are often displaced, but also people downstream the dams could be impacted due to blockage of fish (Richter, 2010). Thus, the construction of those dams causes many interconnected and complex problems. In the Mekong river there are plans to build such dams, and one of them is the Sambor Dam. It was long unknown if the dam could be built, but in 2016 the Cambodian Government agreed to a pre-feasibility, feasibility and social and environmental impact study on the dam (International rivers, n.d.). The site preferred for the dam is close to one of the most important tributary rivers of the Mekong River; the Tonle Sap River. The Tonle Sap River connects the Mekong River with the one of the largest freshwater lakes in South Asia: Tonle Sap Lake (Van Zalinge, Thuok & Nuov., 2001). Tonle Sap Lake is an important breeding site for approximately 280 different fish species (Wu, Ishidaira and Sun, 2009). In addition, the lake is known for its large fish industry and approximately 1,2 million people depend on this lake for their livelihood (Van Zalinge, Thuok & Nuov., 2001). Several studies already show negative impacts on the ecosystem of the Tonle lake due to the dam (International rivers, n.d.). Therefore, the fisheries in the Tonle Sap Lake are under threat due to the construction of the dam.
The potential dam construction could cause major changes in the system of the Tonle Sap Lake. A theory that recognises the changes of systems is the complexity theory. The complexity theory states that the world is not a predictable, but is fast-changing and uncertain. For that reason, one have to look at the world in a radically different way (Boultan & Allan, 2007) and need to recognise the presence of complex systems. Therefore, Tonle Sap Lake needs to be viewed as a complex system. Furthermore, the complexity theory describes how a state of a system can reach a ‘tipping’ point. When this point is reached the state of a system changes in a new state. To recognize this ‘tipping’ point and to prevent this from happening, the signs of instability of a system need to be spotted ((Boultan & Allan, 2007). A system change in the Tonle Sap Lake could be catastrophic for the livelihood of the people living in the Tonle Sap Area and thus signs of instability need to be spotted in time. However, it should be noted that it is not always clear what the new state of such a complex system will be and in addition to disadvantages a new state could also lead to new opportunities, but this is uncertain. To investigate the changes and signs of instability in a such a complex system an integrated viewpoint seems of importance since this can shed light on the integration of factors that can contribute to change. A integrated viewpoint can be conducted by means of interdisciplinary research. Furthermore, interdisciplinary research seems of importance since the interconnections within a system and with other systems reach over multiple disciplines (Boultan & Allan, 2007).
A method that could investigate the threat of the construction of the Sambor Dam and its complexity is a risk assessment. Risk assessment are used in different studies and throughout several disciplines. Risk assessment can be used to base management decisions on which focus on avoiding undesirable events and achieving adequate performance (Fletcher, 2005). However, a gap seems to exists in the literature on risk assessments focussed on complex cases of dam construction that are not built yet. Besides that, an interdisciplinary view seems often to be neglected in risk assessments. Furthermore, a gap in the literature seems to exist in to critical review different risk assessments and conduct new ones. Therefore, this study will developed a new risk assessment by combining the steps of three existing risk assessments. The steps of the new developed risk assessment will be evaluated by four criteria that arise from the case of the Sambor Dam.
The subsequent research question is: which concepts of individual risk assessments can be used to develop a suitable risk assessment for the case of the Sambor Dam?
Firstly, the case of the Sambor Dam and Tonle Sap Lake will be described in order to give a overview of the current situation. Secondly, theoretical framework will be described to elaborate on concepts commonly used in risk assessments. Thirdly, a method will be presented in order to elaborate on how the three existing risk assessments will be analysed and what the criteria are to conduct the new assessment. Next, the analysis on the three existing risk assessment is performed and a new risk assessment is presented. Lastly, the results are discussed in the conclusion and further research is elaborated on in the discussion.
Case description: Sambor Dam and Tonle Sap Lake
The Mekong river flows through six countries and is one of the most biodiverse areas in the world (Matthews, 2012). Currently, water resource development of the Mekong river is under debate due to numerous hydropower development plans. Hydropower is important for impoverished nations of the Mekong river to generate cheap and clean energy (Matthews, 2012) which is critical for development and economic stability in these countries (Bakker, 1999). However, these hydropower development plans have a downside. It could have an high impact on the unique ecology and livelihood that depend on this river (Matthews, 2012). Additionally, demand for energy in Southeast Asia could affect the natural flow of the Mekong river due to man-made flow alteration (Lamberts, 2008).
A new dam that is expected to be constructed in the Mekong River in Cambodia is the Sambor Dam. The government of Cambodia issued permission to a company from China to do a feasibility study for this dam construction. Consequently, the project is expected to initiate soon (International Rivers, n.d.). However, the project and the expected power output has been under discussion for a long time. Kimsroy (2017) studied the dam dispute and pointed out the following developments. The first plans for development of the Sambor hydropower dam originate from 1952. The first documents about the benefits and impacts from the dam are from 1960 in which it is stated that the selected site in the Sambor was the prefered site because of its wide rocky rapid. Also other reports on technical, economic and financial aspects were developed and it was stated that the dam alone could generate 875 MW. However, projects for other dams, upstream the Mekong River, were developed and with the construction of the other dams the Sambor dam could generate 2100 MW. Through several reasons the project was stalled. For instance due to the Cambodia genocide in 1975-1979. After 1990 the project was reintroduced in the area. The project caught a lot of attention with critical notes on the impacts on one side and enthusiasm from the ministries and the Mekong River Commission (MRC) on the other. For instance, a vice chairman at the Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC) proposed another 500 MW on top of the 2100 MW and ensured that this would not impact the local people. On the other side great concern about the fishery yield was stated. Later on in 2000 a new feasibility study was conducted stated that the dam would generate even more power up to 3300 MW. However, in 2006 a study from the South China Grid (SCG) company was conducted for 2600 MW in which 30 percent would be used for local use and 70 percent would be transported to foreign countries. New studies on the impacts showed that 3369
hectares of agricultural fields and 13143 hectares of forest would inundated. Therefore, the SCG company retreated. Now a new company from China, the China Guodion Corporation (CGC), wants to develop the dam. However, the exact capacity of the dam is unclear. Besides that, the governmental organisations recommended a new design because of the immense impacts predicted earlier, but it is unknown what the impacts will be exactly (Kimsroy, 2017).
One of the most important sites near the Sambor Dam is the Tonle Sap Lake. Wild and Loucks (2015) state that due to the appearance of the Tonle Sap Lake, the Sambor Dam is the most important dam in the entire Basin. This is because the Sambor Dam could disturb the process of sediment trapping which is for great importance for the lake. In addition, Wu, Ishidaira and Sun (2009) point out that the dam could have an enormous impact on the Tonle Sap Lake especially since the Sambor Dam is built near the confluence of the Mekong River and Tonle Sap River. This confluence is important because of the following reason: in the wet seasons the Tonle Sap Lake is dependent on the inflow of the Mekong River in the Tonle Sap River and the Lake expands from 3000 km2 to 15000 km2 in
the wet seasons (Wu, Ishidaira and Sun, 2009). This expansion and shrink is called the flood pulse. Annually the flood pulse is responsible for 52% of the average annual inflow of 79 km3. In the dry season the Tonlé Sap river changes direction, and about 87% of the annual
outflow of 78.6 km3 is discharged through the river (Kummu et al., 2006). Sediment transport
is important to sustain the flood pulse and the water quality. Besides that, as a result of this flood pulse plant matter is transferred into the lake. The plant matter is broken down by bacteria and available for many fish by foodwebs (Lamberts, 2008). Changes in one of these could affect the way the flood pulse works and the amount of sediments and nutrients available in the lake (Koldoff, 1997). The flood pulse is essential for the lake for several reasons. For instance, approximately 280 fish species use the lake as breeding area, but also for nursing and feeding (Wu, Ishidaira and Sun, 2009). However, not only changes in flood pulse and water quality can disturb the fish populations, but also migration routes of the fish can be disturbed by the construction of the Sambor Dam. Ferguson et al. (2011) state that around 110 different species in the Mekong River are migratory fish. Suggestions have been made to construct fish passages around the dam, but previous studies point out that these fish traps do not operate sufficiently and the fish cannot move from one side of the dam to the other (Ferguson, et al., 2011).
These fish populations are important for the livelihood for people living on or near the lake since the fish industry is an essential resource for approximately 1,2 million people in this area (Van Zalinge, Thuok & Nuov., 2001). Hap, Seng, and Chuenpagdee (2006) distinguish three kinds of households, based on their level of fishing activities in the lake: the three groups are fishing, fishing cum farming and farming villages. It is important to notice that not only the fishing households depend on the fisheries in the lake, but the farming villages depend on the fishery as well, because fishery is often their secondary source of livelihood. Furthermore, Keskinen (2006) states that fisherman is the most important secondary occupation in the agricultural zones. Additionally, he points out that the fisheries is often considered as a safety net for the people. Due to the possibility of enormous disturbance on the livelihood of the people in the Tonle Sap Area a risk assessment on the exact impacts on the Dam on the fisheries should be conducted before the CGC will construct the dam.
Term
description
Risk assessments are used in many different disciplines to base management decisions on (Fletcher, 2005). Because the usage is widely spread, there are many different forms. The most apparent distinction is between quantitative and qualitative risk assessment (Fletcher, 2005). In a quantitative risk assessment risk is expressed in numbers. Either the assessment itself consists of valuable units or risk is expressed in scales of severity. Fletcher (2005) also states that quantitative risk assessments are more robust than qualitative risk assessments. However, they are considered to be equally important for risk management (Fletcher, 2005). When quantitative risk is defined, the definition hazard is used. Hazard is defined as a potential threat to people, goods and environment (Smith, 2013). There are other definitions of hazard, for example Smith & Petly (2008) use the term environmental hazard. They specify hazard to people as death , injury disease and mental stress. Hazard to goods are specified as property damage and economic loss. Lastly, hazard to the environment are specified as loss of flora, fauna, pollution and amenity. Of these three subdivisions in hazard,people have the highest priority and environment the lowest (Smith & Petly, 2008). These definitions are also used in qualitative risk assessments, but to assess the quantitative risk the likelihood of the hazard is determined. This leads to the following formula: Hazard* Probability of the hazard = Risk (Smith, 2013).Qualitative risk is assessed in very different ways, most of them varying per subject and discipline. To attribute the same validity to qualitative risk and quantitative risk assessment, several guidelines are made, which differ per risk assessment (Wooldridge, 2008).
The terms people, goods and environment are used to include most parts of complex systems which could be affected by a potential threat. Generally, qualitative and quantitative risk assessments have the same structure. The assessment starts with a sources of risk identification, in which the sources of a certain issue are identified. Sometimes the word ‘stressor’ is used instead of issue. Secondly, the impact of each issue is identified. Thirdly, the probability of a certain level of impact is assessed. Together, these steps form an estimation of risk (Fletcher, 2005).
In risk assessments other terms are used to help define risk. One of these terms is vulnerability. Vulnerability is classified in 3 different ways: social vulnerability, economic vulnerability and physical vulnerability (Blaikie et al., 2014). Social vulnerability concerns people, economic vulnerability concerns livelihood and physical vulnerability concerns goods.These terms are generally applied on vulnerability of people and goods and do not concern the environment (Blaikie et al., 2014). This makes the definition of Smith (2012) to
include the environment a more complete definition.
Another term is exposure, which is elaborated on as a step in many risk assessments (Suter, 2012; US EPA, n.d.). Exposed could be defined as the level of effects from a potential threat to people good and environment (Smith, 2013). It is sometimes part of an exposure-response analyses, which defines the effects of the exposure.
The integration technique that will be used in this paper is the organisational approach. The organisation technique combines commonality in concepts, redefines them if necessary and arranges them in a new system (Rammelt, 2017).
These terms are used in many risk assessments and will be used in the analyses to explain and define steps in risk assessments.
Methods
This study compares three different risk assessments and is focused on the case of the Sambor Dam. To analyse the three risk assessments and develop an new risk assessment the following structure is needed. Firstly, it is important to describe what criteria define the case of the Sambor Dam. Thereafter, the steps of the three existing risk assessments will be analysed by this criteria. Lastly, the steps that seems suitable according to the criteria are used to develop new risk assessment which will be visualized.
The most important aspects form the case of the Sambor Dam are used to define four criteria. The four criteria from the case of the Sambor Dam that seems most important to take into account when conducting a new risk assessment are as followed. Firstly, for environmental hazards there are three types of threats that can be identified (Smith & Petly, 2008). Hazard to people, hazard to goods and hazards to environment. Since the the risk of the Sambor Dam on the fisheries in the Tonle Sap Lake seems to include risk on water level and ecosystem and thus the environment, but also on the fisheries and livelihood of the people and thus the goods and people are included. Therefore, it is important that these three indicators are present in the developed risk assessment.
The second criteria is that the case is complex and an interdisciplinary view is needen. The system of the case study can be described as complex, which is mentioned before in the introduction. Some more examples are given to further describe this complexity. Due to for instance important tipping points, such as sustaining the flood pulse. If the flood pulse reverses or disappears because of changed water levels, this will affect the whole system (Eloheimo et al., 2001). This is because a change in flood pulse will disturb breeding process that rely on the flood pulse and lead to change in nutrient supply by sediments from the river (Lamberts, 2008). Furthermore, emergence and interconnectivity are important parts of the Mekong and Tonlé Sap ecosystem, because they are linked and affect each other, while they can be seen as a system individually, they are also connected to another level of systems, that includes both of them (Van Zalinge et al., 2001). Therefore an risk assessment that can cope with the problems of complexity is needed. A good way to cope with complexity is an interdisciplinary approach (Boultan & Allan, 2007). This will lead to an integrated view on risk, because the risks in this system influence each other.
Thirdly, another important aspect of the risk of the Sambor dam on the Tonle Sap lake fisheries is, that the dam is not built yet. This makes it important that the risk assessment is able to predict a certain risk. Thus, an estimation of the possible risks need to be made.
Lastly, a lack of accurate data about the Tonle Sap lake fisheries and the Sambor dam seems to appear.To be able to define the risk in a good manner, a risk assessment is needed that can define risk in data limited situations. Therefore, the four criteria are as
followed: the scope need to include the subjects on goods, people and environment, an interdisciplinary view is required, it need to incorporate that the dam is not built yet, thus need to predict a certain risk and the risk assessment is need to deal with a data limited situation.
The criteria will be used to analyse the existing risk assessment by investigating if they meet these criteria. Additionally, a organisation approach is used. In the case of the Sambor dam the organisational approach seemed very suitable. Integration of different disciplines is important for this case since changes in the environment have social influences. So concepts from different disciplines are going to be combined. This has been done by combining different risk assessments. Concepts that seemed important to create a risk assessment that fits our case best has been combined and a new risk assessment is developed.
The data collected to conduct this study is from information that is available online. The website google scholar and web of knowledge were are used to find the academic literature that is focused on the case study. Both search engines provides academic papers from different journals. Besides that, several websites with information on the case study are used. Also the information required for the risk assessment is from websites and the search engine google scholar. Terms that are searched for are risk assessment in general, interdisciplinary risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, water related risk assessment. Information on the case study is focussed on different subjects. The Sambor Dam could impact the fisheries in the Tonle Sap Lake by disturbance in het hydrological system, ecological system and societal system. Terms that are searched for to research the changes in hydrological system are water level, water quality, sedimentation and flood pulse in the Tonle Sap Lake. Terms to search the changes in the ecological system are fish population, fish migration and nutrient change in the Tonle Sap Lake. Additionally, terms to search change in the social system are socioeconomic status, water governance and the society of the Tonle Sap Lake. The academic literature review on this large number of subject includes both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Additionally, the time frame of the review literature is from 1999 till now.
Analysis
To develop a new risk assessment that is suitable for assessing the risk of the Sambor dam for the Tonle Sap lake fisheries, three risk assessment are used. The information on the risk assessments are from three different organizations; The World Health Organization (WHO), the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). All the organizations provide information on the risk assessments on their websites and describe what steps need to be conducted to perform the risk assessments. The first risk assessment is from the WHO, which developed a risk assessment that combines different processes of risk, such as humans, biota and natural resources in one assessment. This risk assessment is called Integrated Risk Assessment and is described by Suter et al. (2012) (figure 1). This risk assessment is chosen because the fisheries in the Tonlé Sap could be affected by disturbance in human, biota and natural resources. The second risk assessment is from the US EPA which developed the Ecological Risk Assessment described by Suter II (2016) (figure 2). Since the disturbance in fish population seems to have the most influence on the fisheries in the Tonle Sap Lake, this risk assessment has been chosen. This risk assessment does not only cover the effect on fish but on the whole environment. The impact on the whole ecosystem is assessed in this risk assessment.
The last risk assessment is from the MSC which developed a risk assessment for data limited fisheries (figure 3) (Marine Stewardship Council, 2014). Since data on the risk of the Sambor Dam on the Fisheries in the Tonle Sap Lake is outdated or non-existing this risk assessment seems suitable for this case.
Figure 1, Integrated risk assessment containing the following steps: problem formulation with hazard identification, followed up by the analysis phase which consists of two steps. Characterization of exposure which is influenced by the exposure assessment and Characterization of Effects which is influenced by the Dose-Response Assessment, these steps lead to the risk characterization. Aside from the mainstep there are two more profound steps, risk management and stakeholder participation which are presented behind the other steps of the risk assessment
(Suter et al., 2012). Met opmerkingen [1]: Anneke had vorige keer
opmerking dat dit ook van de US EPA is en dat deze bron dus niet klopt
Figure 2: Ecological risk assessment, problem formulation which is interacting with planning, analysis and risk characterization. This could eventually lead to risk management via communication of results.(US EPA., n.d).
Figure 3: Risk-based assessment for data limited fisheries, First phase: Data gathering and Stakeholder workshop, Analysis: Consequence analysis, Productivity Susceptibility Analysis,
Consequence Spatial Analysis, Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis, Final phase: Scoring analysis, Comparing with other fisheries (modified from Marine Stewardship Council, 2014).
The first step of the integrated risk assessment is the problem formulation. The problem formulation consists of the management goals, the purpose and scope of the assessment and the resource availability. Secondly, is contains a planning dialogue which deliberates if the risk assessment is needed (Suter et al., 2012). Suter et al., (2012) discusses the value of presenting the plan of a risk assessment to stakeholders, risk managers and risk assessors, because these groups can add valuable information to conduct the risk assessment. One of the criteria for a risk assessment for the case of the Sambor Dam, as mentioned in the methods, is that the scope includes people, goods and environment. Also, an interdisciplinary viewpoint is desired. The dialog with different stakeholders can benefit this two criteria provided that stakeholders interested in people, goods and environment are included. Besides that, stakeholders with a background in different disciplines could be invited.
Contrary to the integrated risk assessment, the ecological risk assessment does not start with the problem formulation, but the first step of the ecological risk assessment is planning. In this step the desired ecological state is determined by investigating the steps already taken to achieve this state and by searching the present state (Suter, 2016). In the case of Tonlé Sap Lake and the potential dams, it is hard to determine the desired state, because the optimal state differs per stakeholder on different scales, perspectives and disciplines (Sokhem & Sunada, 2006), but this makes it also an important step. A step from the risk assessment of the MSC can contribute to determine the desire state by searching for the present state. This is a step from the analysis phase and is called the consequence analysis (Marine Stewardship Council, 2014). This analysis determine trends in target stock of fishery with all available data. It should be noted that this only contributes to the desired state for fish population, but since the fisheries depend on this population it also seems of importance for the goods and people. Next to the desired state the precautions already taken to achieve the desired state should be investigated according to Suter. As mentioned in the methods, a criteria is that the risk assessment should fit the case of a dam that is not built yet. Therefore, it seems plausible that the precautions do not exist and thus the focus should not be on the step of investigating the precautions. In parable with the integrated risk assessment the second step of the ecological risk assessment consists of problem formulation. In this step, a conceptual model and analyses plan is made (Suter, 2016). Since this is an ecological risk assessment, this step is used to define which animals or plants are at risk. Next, it is defined which plants and animals need protection (US EPA., n.d.). The focus of the ecological risk assessment only discusses what animals or plants are at risk which is very limited. Therefore, the focus of the integrated risk assessment on goods and people should be added to this step.
In line with the resource availability of the integrated risk assessment the MSC risk assessment starts with data collection, because this risk assessment is focused on data-limited fisheries (Marine Stewardship Council, 2014). This data collection consists of two steps. First there is the data that is available at the moment from the fisheries. The second and the most important is the data that is gathered by the consulting workshop with fishery stakeholders. One of the criteria as mentioned in the method is that the risk assessment should fit to a data limited case. Therefore, the two steps of the MSC seems of great importance.
Because of the previously mentioned the first two steps in an ideal risk assessment for the case of the Sambor Dam are planning and problem formulation (figure 4). The planning phase includes gathering of data which is in line with the criteria of a data limited risk assessment. This data can be gathered by searching for available data, but also by a consulting workshop with the fishery stakeholders. Additionally, the desired state is determined in the planning phase in which the consequence analysis can contribute. Next, the problem is formulated. In this step the scope, management goals and purpose are defined in which the scope is not only focussed on risk on plants and animals, but also on goods and people. In addition, and planning dialog with stakeholders is recommended, because they can add valuable information for an interdisciplinary research. Also again data should be gathered in this step to conduct the next phase: the analysis phase.
To characterize the risk further, the next step of the integrated risk assessment is the analysis. The analysis of the integrated risk assessment consists of the characterization of exposure and the characterization of effects (Suter et al., 2012). Characterization of exposure “is the estimation of the concentrations, doses, or degree of contact of chemical, physical or biological stressors to which human individuals or populations, nonhuman individuals, populations, or ecosystems are or may be exposed” (Suter, 2012, p. 11). Important is to evaluate the stressors in a system these can be chemical, biological or physical (Suter et al., 2012). When analyzing the whole cycle of this stressor clarification of the harm to humans can be identified more easily (Suter et al., 2012). In the case of the Sambor Dam the degree of contact of physical, chemical and biological stressors on the goods, people and environment should be assessed. Studying not only one stressor, but multiple stressors from different disciplines is in line with interdisciplinary research (a criteria mentioned in the methods) especially when the stressors are combined by an integration theory as, for example, organisation theory. Additionally, all the three different stressors on chemical, physical and biological issues seems to fit in the case of the Sambor Dam. The Sambor dam is expected to affect the water levels (Kondolf et al., 2014). Besides the construction of the Sambor dam will block fish migration routes (Baran et al., 2009). Therefore, it is important that the physical stressors are assessed. Furthermore, a change in nutrient availability is expected, by decreasing sediment amounts. Consequently, the chemical and biological stressors should be assessed. These physical, chemical and biological stressors can disturb the fish population and thus the fisheries of whom the people on and around the lake depend on.
The next step in the integrated risk assessment is the characterization of effects which consists of two different stages: hazard identification and the exposure to response analysis (Suter et al., 2012). Hazard identification is the identification of the negative consequences of the stressors. The exposure response analysis is the estimation of the connection to the level of exposure to a stressor incidence and the severity of effects (Suter et al., 2012). In the case of the Sambor Dam the negative consequences of the stressors can be on goods, people and environment.
The exposure response analysis seems also important for the case on the Sambor Dam. This is important because there is a lot interconnectivity between the Tonlé Sap system and the influence of the construction of the Sambor dam. For instance, the Sambor dam will block fish migration routes, which will lead to less breeding places, so less fish which eventually has an impact on the livelihood of fishermen especially since 1,2 million people depend on the fish stocks for their livelihood (Van Zalinge, Thuok & Nuov., 2001).
Similar to the integrated risk assessment the ecological assessment consists of the same two steps, characterization of exposure and effects. Despite of a more specific focus on ecological risks, these two steps do not differ from the integrated risk assessment.
However, the MSC risk assessment analysis part consist of four quite different steps. The first step is the Consequence Analysis, here all forms of available data are used to define trends in the target stocks of a fishery. For the case of the Sambor Dam this step is used in the planning phase. The second step is the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis, in this step the resilience of a target stock when depleted is assessed, furthermore the interaction between the species and fishing gear is assessed. This step could be added to the characterisation of exposure because this can contribute to investigate the resilience of the stressors in the system.
The third step is the Consequence Spatial Analysis, the effect of fishery on the habitats is assessed in the step. The Consequence Spatial Analysis is chosen to be left out in the new developed risk assessment, because this steps is too specie specific. Since the system of the Tonle Sap Lake is very complex it seems better to assess the whole ecosystem. The last step is the Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis here the likelihood that the fisheries or fish population affect the wider ecosystem is assessed. This step could be added to the characterisation of effects because the effects could be spread out to other ecosystems. Furthermore, this step can contribute to deepen in to the scope of the environment, because the effects on fish population could affect the whole ecosystem and its services.
Therefore, for the analysis part of the new developed risk assessment, the steps of the integrated risk assessment will be followed . In addition of these steps the suitable steps of the MSC risk assessment will be added (figure 4). Thus, the first step of the analysis of the new risk assessment will be characterization of exposure. Here the degree of contact of physical, chemical and biological stressors on the goods, people and environment are assessed. In addition to this characterization of exposure, the first step of the MSC risk assessment analysis will be used. This is the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis. This analysis is focused on the resilience of the Tonlé Sap fish stocks. An assessment is made here about how fish stock react to disturbance. This step is important to define the impact of possible disturbances by the Sambor dam. The second step of analysis is the characterization of effects. Firstly, the hazard is identified here. An integrated hazard identification is necessary to cover all the effects. The effects that are assessed in the integrated risk assessment are effects on goods, people and environment caused by changed parameters. For instance the effect of less sediments transported by the water after the dam. But the integrated risk assessment of the WHO, does not assess the impact of fisheries on the surrounding ecosystem. By adding the Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis the impact of the fisheries on the surrounding ecosystem is assessed as well. This leads to a complete overview of the system, because effects in both ways are measured which can help to tackle this complex system. Next an exposure response analysis in conducted which combines the exposure to the effects.
The last phase in the integrated risk assessment is the risk characterization which includes risk estimation and risk description. The risk estimation combines the results of the characterizations of exposure and effects to estimate the risks to each endpoint and estimates the uncertainties associated with the risks (Suter et al., 2012). This become more complex when observed effects in the field and causation must be assigned to different lines
of evidence (Suter et al., 2012). An important concept that has to be taken into account in a risk assessment is uncertainty. Through uncertainty analysis uncertainties can be expressed (Suter et al., 2012). Uncertainty does exist concerning the effects and consequences to people who are dependent on the fisheries and its complex system.
The risk description summarizes the results for presentation to the risk manager and stakeholders (Suter et al., 2012). This managers and stakeholders should be in line with the purpose of the risk assessment as described in the first phase.
In addition of this step, in the ecological risk assessment sometimes another step is added, risk management (Suter, 2016). The focus in the risk management should be on prevention because of the criteria that the dam is not built yet. Also in the case of Tonlé Sap only prevention is relevant, this does not necessarily mean to prevent the construction of the dams, it could also be implemented as a prevention of effects.
The last step of the MSC risk assessment is a grading system for all the different analyzing step. In this system the sustainability of different fisheries can be compared. Since the risk of the Sambor dam on the fisheries is assessed and not the risk of the fisheries itself, this last step is not present in the new risk assessment.
Therefore, the last phase in the new developed risk assessment as visualised in figure 4 consist of the risk characterisation concerning risk estimation and description and the risk management.
Figure 4 Risk assessment focussed on criteria from case of Sambor Dam. Developed by combining suitable concepts from existing risk assessments. Consists of the following steps: planning, problem formulation, analysis, risk characterisation and risk management.
Conclusion & Discussion
This study attempted to develop a suitable risk assessment for the Sambor dam case based on concept of individual risk assessments. The individual risk assessments that have been analysed are chosen because they seem to be relevant for our case. This integrated risk assessment is based on combining perspectives and relevant concepts. The ecological risk assessment has been chosen because fish is the most central concept of the case and this is an ecological concept. The last risk assessment was the MSC risk assessment.. It is
challenging to compare risk assessments since a theory about risk assessment analyses does not exist. Therefore our own perspectives on the assessments have been taken into account when making decisions about important concepts and the risk assessments themselves. These perspectives are justified by criteria that are defined from the case.
All risk assessments that have been analysed have some useful concepts. However they do not cover all the criteria. Therefore a new risk assessment has been developed that is suits the criteria and is therefore suitable for the Sambor Dam case.
Thus, the new risk assessment consists of: planning, problem formulation, analysis, risk characterisation and risk management. Planning which includes gathering data and consequences analysis is the first step in the Sambor Dam risk assessment. These steps are important to create a clear view on the problem. From this the problem can be formulated in the problem formulation. The first concept that is different in our risk assessment is the scope. The scopes of the individual risk assessment were not specific enough or did not cover all the criterias. This follows from the fact that different disciplines are used and therefore different views, and their corresponding scopes, on the problem are included in the scope. For example goods, people and environment should be included in the scope according to the criteria.
The analysis part consist of the characterisation of exposure and the characterisation of effect from the integrated risk assessment. These are combined with the concepts productivity susceptibility analysis and scale intensity consequences analysis. The consequence spatial analysis is the next step form the analysis part. This step is left out because the Tonle Sap ecosystem is complex and consist of many species. This step can be used when focussing on one species and not on many.
The characterisation of exposure and the characterisation of effect are used for the exposure response analysis. From this the risk characterisation is conducted and risk management can take place. It can be concluded that many concept of the integrated risk assessment are used for the Sambor dam risk assessment. The concept of other two risk assessments have been used to complete the Sambor risk assessment so that it is complete and covers all the important problems in our case.
This study developed its own method to analyse the different scenarios because it appears that not a sufficient analyse method for risk assessments exists. A new study should be conducted which focus on how risk assessments should be analysed especially because many studies use risk assessments.
Additionally, to conduct this risk assessment, further research should be done on how much energy the Sambor dam will generate. Also, different scenarios for different sizes of the Dam could be conducted. Furthermore, the fish populations of various fish should be examined before the construction to gather more information on the present state of fish populations.
Even though the Sambor risk assessment is developed for the case of the Sambor dam, it could be used for different cases that also meet the criteria. . However, when using the assessment it has to be taken into account that differences in the cases occur. This assessment is based on the Mekong river and the Tonle Sap area with special features like the flood pulse. Since this study elaborates on every single step also only suitable steps from the developed risk assessment could be used in other cases.
Literature
Bakker, K. (1999). The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political Geography, 18(2), 209-232.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (2014). At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.
Boulton, J., & Allen, P. (2007). The complexity perspective. In V. Ambrosini, M. Jenkins, & N. Mowbray (Eds.), Advanced strategic management: A multi-perspective approach (2 ed.). Palgrave Macmillan
Eloheimo, K., Hellsten, S., Jantunen, T., Jozsa, T., Kiirikki, M., Lauri, H., Koponen, J., Sarkk ula, J., Varis, O. and Virtanen, M. 2001. Data Report, Water Utilization Program—Modelling
of the Flow Regime and Water Quality of the Tonlé Sap, Phnom Penh: Mekong River
Commission.
Ferguson, J. W., Healey, M., Dugan, P., & Barlow, C. (2011). Potential effects of dams on migratory fish in the Mekong River: lessons from salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers. Environmental Management, 47(1), 141-159.
Fletcher, W. J. (2005). The application of qualitative risk assessment methodology to prioritize issues for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62(8), 1576-1587.
Hap, N., Seng, L. and Chuenpagdee, R. (2006). Socioeconomics and Livelihood Values of Tonle Sap Lake Fisheries. Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 24 pp
International rivers, (n.d.). Sambor Dam. Retrieved from: https://www.internationalrivers.org/campaigns/sambor-dam
Keskinen, M. (2006). The Lake with floating villages: Socio-economic analysis of the Tonle Sap Lake. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(3), 463-480.
Kimsroy, S. (2017). Assessing Impacts of Hydropower Plant on Livelihood of Local residents in Cambodia: The Case of Sambor Project (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). Kummu, M., Sarkkula, J., Koponen, J., & Nikula, J. (2006). Ecosystem management of the Tonle an integrated modelling approach. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(3), 497-519.
Lamberts, D. (2006). The Tonle Sap Lake as a productive ecosystem. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(3), 481-495.
Marine Stewardship Council (2014). Risk-based assessment for data limited fisheries. Retrieved on 20-12-2017 from
https://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/fisheries-standard/msc-risk-based-framework
Matthews, N. (2012). Water grabbing in the Mekong basin – An analysis of the winners and losers of Thailand’s hydropower development in Lao PDR. Water Alternatives 5(2), 392-411 Rammelt, C. (2017) Interdisciplinary project: integration [College slides] retrieved from: https://blackboard.uva.nl/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd=view&content_id=_
6816926_1&course_id=_212827_1.
Richter, B. D., Postel, S., Revenga, C., Scudder, T., Lehner, B., Churchill, A., & Chow, M. (2010). Lost in development's shadow: the downstream human consequences of dams. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 14.
Smith, K. (2013). Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge. Sokhem, P. & Sunada K. (2006) The Governance of the Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia: Integration of Local, National and International Levels. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(3), 399-416,
Somerville Margaret, A., & Rapport David, J. (2000). Transdisciplinarity: Recreating Integrated Knowledge.
Suter II, G. W. (2016). Ecological risk assessment. CRC press.
Suter, G., Vermeire, t., Munns, W., and Sekizawa, J. (2012). II. Framework for the integration of health and ecological risk assessment. Retrieved on 12-11-2017 from http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/en/ch_2.pdf?ua=1
US EPA. (n.d.). Ecological risk assessment. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-risk-assessment#self
Wild, T. B., & Loucks, D. P. (2015). Mitigating dam conflicts in the Mekong River Basin. In Conflict Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Management. Springer International Publishing, 25-48.
Wooldridge, M. (2008). Qualitative risk assessment. In Microbial Risk Analysis of Foods (pp. 1-28). American Society of Microbiology.
WU, S., ISHIDAIRA, H., & SUN, W. (2009). Potential impact of Sambor Dam project on interaction between Mekong River and Tonle Sap Lake. International Conference on Sustainability, Human Geography and Environmental Studies 2009.
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., & Tockner, K. (2015). A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences, 77(1), 161-170.
