From Other Lisa, cross-posted at the paper tiger…
Three Gorges Probe began as an organization dedicated to covering that controversial dam project and all its ramifications. They’ve expanded to cover other projects and the implications of power generation in China. Here is an English translation of an article by Chen Guojie, a senior researcher at the Chengdu Institute for Mountain Hazards and Environment, who warns of the hazards of overdeveloping hydropower in China’s river-rich Southwest. In the rush to build, it’s impossible to even get an accurate count of how many dams are being planned for the region, and regulatory oversight has been sorely lacking:
A recent survey by the Sichuan Electric Power Bureau found 128 small-scale hydro stations with the “four no’s”: no feasibility study, no official approval, no environmental assessment and no acceptance certificate. In a few extreme cases, small dams have been built on river sections that are just a kilometre long. The situation is reminiscent of the Great Leap Forward in the 1950s, when crude steel smelters cropped up in every backyard.
What is particularly worrying is that in most cases, no comprehensive planning for the development and environmental protection of the valleys involved has been undertaken. Each dam builder administers its own affairs, with no regard for the collective interest.
Who should be responsible for these unchecked activities and how can this chaotic situation be brought under control? I’d like to characterize the situation as “anarchism under government rule.”
The environmental consequences of this free-for-all are potentially devastating, particularly given the “terracing” of dams planned for the region:
Building cascades of dams has become the pattern of future development not only on the upper Yangtze and the Pearl but also in the Lancang and Nu river basins. If the current trend is allowed to continue, the Yangtze, Pearl, Lancang, Nu and Hongshui will no longer be natural rivers; they will be like staircases — a series of sections interrupted by hydro stations. So the water of the Yangtze will no longer come from heaven1 but from these “steps,” and our free-flowing rivers will disappear forever….
…The upper reaches of the Yangtze and the Pearl rivers, and both the Lancang and Nu rivers, are important habitats for aquatic life that thrives in fast-flowing water. There are 153 fish species — including 44 species unique to the Yangtze — in the main channel of the river alone, where their breeding habitats are also concentrated. The widespread construction of hydropower stations, especially in the form of terraced dams, has left these species little room for survival. Construction of the Xiluodu and Xiangjiaba dams on the Jinsha River [upper Yangtze], for example, is making the “Yangtze Hejiang-Leibo rare fish species protection zone” much smaller, with the breeding habitats almost totally destroyed.
China’s environmentalists have repeatedly warned about the consquences of such irresponsible, unplanned and unchecked development. The problem, Chen reports, is that the decision-makers simply do not listen:
It is interesting to note that almost all the experts who have expressed views about the Three Gorges project that diverge from the official position have never been invited to take part in any other feasibility studies or subsequent environmental assessments. Local governments and the authorities in charge of proposed hydro projects only want to invite the participation of “yes men,” to help push the schemes forward, while those who view the projects with a more critical eye are excluded. This is a long-standing and peculiar situation, which by now is just taken for granted in China.
Chen questions whether the proliferation of dams will lead to profits for anyone, beyond local officials who benefit from kickbacks and skimming from resettlement funds:
Local governments like the idea of building hydro stations, especially small dams, in the hope of accelerating the development of the local economy. However, whether local owners will actually be able to sell to the grid the electricity generated from small dams is uncertain given that the grids are controlled either by the national or regional grid companies.
Unchecked development of hydropower resources could lead to a glut on the market, with many regions unable to sell their hydroelectricity as a result. Local hydro project owners would then face a dilemma: In the wet summer season, they could produce abundant power but have difficulty selling it. And in the dry season, there would be demand for their electricity but they wouldn’t have enough water to run the turbines and produce the power.
Many hydro stations in the southwest are built with bank loans, and the revenue generated from the projects cannot even cover the interest on the loans. How can owners make a profit from hydro stations in such circumstances?…
…While it is true that local governments can benefit from the project-related resettlement schemes and from the construction of new towns, it is also the case that local officials associated with resettlement operations tend to grab the opportunity to pocket some of the public funds earmarked for the schemes. Dam construction projects have become breeding grounds for corruption and degenerate behaviour.
Certainly the majority of these projects have not benefited the common people, many of whom have lost not only their homes but the farmland which once generated their income. Chen notes that the vast majority of those displaced by such projects are still living in poverty, years later.
It’s past time for this chaotic situation to be brought under strict control, Chen states. The question is, does anyone in the Chinese government have the power to do so?
1
By Keir
Thet had better do something. Of the very little water China has, I’ve read a report (World Bank, maybe) that suggested that 75% is unfit for humans- unfit for drinking, irrigating or even swimming.
Brings back the image fromPrivate life of Chairman Mao of the Helmsman swimming past all that sewage as he tackled the Yangste…
August 24, 2005 @ 5:19 pm | Comment
2
By Keir
Sorry- one last thing before I go to work.
My concern about this report is the nature of the consequences it describes, specifically the loss of species and how “our free-flowing rivers will disappear forever….”
I think that if this was all we had to face from such dams, most would consider it a price worth paying. Better fish die out than humans (I mean, it’s not like dogs and cats are accorded any special consideration, so who cares about aquatic life?), and as for the latter, well, oh well. So not as many people will be carried away to their deaths by the ‘free flow’, and others will be able to finally navigate and build a livelihood.
No, the consequences are far far worse from the methane gas and reservors of sewage to the increasingly likely timebombs when one day a dam forced to hold back greater and greater water pressure bursts because the people who built them are unaccountable, unqualified, and just don’t give a @#*%.
August 24, 2005 @ 5:44 pm | Comment
3
By Keir
Sorry- one last thing before I go to work.
My concern about this report is the nature of the consequences it describes, specifically the loss of species and how “our free-flowing rivers will disappear forever….”
I think that if this was all we had to face from such dams, most would consider it a price worth paying. Better fish die out than humans (I mean, it’s not like dogs and cats are accorded any special consideration, so who cares about aquatic life?), and as for the latter, well, oh well. So not as many people will be carried away to their deaths by the ‘free flow’, and others will be able to finally navigate and build a livelihood.
No, the consequences are far far worse from the methane gas and reservoirs of sewage to the increasingly likely timebombs when one day a dam forced to hold back greater and greater water pressure bursts because the people who built them are unaccountable, unqualified, and just don’t give a @#*%.
August 24, 2005 @ 5:45 pm | Comment
4
By Sam_S
The provincial governments have the say-so over hydro projects, generally, so there’s not (yet) a coordinated central oversight.
A couple of things bother me about this article: It seems to imply that there may not be a market for the electricity. I suppose it could be true in spots, but I’m not aware of any area that DOESN’T have more demand than supply right now.
Second, the terracing issue is a bit oversimplified. The water moves just as fast in the area between dams, and terracing actually helps even out the highs and lows between wet and dry seasons.
The other environmental concerns are pretty valid, as far as I can see. Now would be a good time to lobby for intelligent, responsible development of hydro, given the carbon/nuclear nature of the alternatives.
August 24, 2005 @ 6:04 pm | Comment
5
By Other Lisa
Keir, Sam, if you haven’t read the article in its entirety, I hope you do so. It might clarify some of the issues you’ve raised. the whole notion of an electricity glut is one that I don’t know much about but I think there is another piece at threegorges.org that deals with it.
Keir, it’s a very long article – a part I didn’t excerpt talks about the other consequences of daming rivers this way – for instance, the silt that builds up and how this affects entire ecosystems, not just the fish.
Martyn promises to have a post for us soon about his own observations in Thailand about the consequences of some of China’s dam projects.
August 24, 2005 @ 6:52 pm | Comment
6
By Martyn
Great post Lis. Thanks very much for that.
My company once sent me to Nong Khai in Northern Thailand on a job and while I was there I went to look at the Mekong. It wasn’t a very pleasant trip. The water level at the part of the Mekong that I saw was less than half it had been for a couple of millenia.
My Thai was just good enough for me to understand some locals tell me and the driver that the water level had plummetted only in the last several years since China had been building dams on thieir side of the border and grabbing as much water as they could.
Certain species of fish had since disappeared, familiies that had used the great river since time immemorial to make a living no longer could. It was heartbreaking to see the devastation caused to the environment, aquatic life and the lives of the ancient river communities simply because of China’s new found thirst for water.
I believe similar situations occur in Nepal/India because of the dams China are building there.
Since that trip to the Mekong, I’ve since read that China’s attitude towards the effect of its dams across the border from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand is either complete silence or a lecture that the river water on China’s side of the border is China’s water. As far as China is concerned, it’s as simple as that.
August 24, 2005 @ 7:05 pm | Comment
7
By Keir
I understand that the article is long and raises a number of points, and that the wildlife affected won’t merely consist of fish. But my point is that the average Chinese won’t care about the affect on wildlife at all.
And the gov’t? Why would it care? After all, this is a gov’t that has no problem physically moving those most vulnerable (farmers) and relocate them on higher ground where the soil is thinner and the ability to grow anything is limited. Oh, and these new areas tend to be located in mountainous areas far from established transport networks (and any link to their ancesteral lands which would then be submerged, but who cares about old Chinese relics and history anyway?) with the added danger of tectonic activity. Forget what I said about dams bursting from water pressure; they might be as likely to break through minor earth tremors.
August 24, 2005 @ 7:29 pm | Comment
8
By Shanghai Slim
“The question is, does anyone in the Chinese government have the power to do so?”
I’m afraid the answer is “no”. And I doubt that will change anytime soon.
Just another consequence of China’s current form of government. No accountability, no checks or balances – this type of organization is ideal for constructing major civic projects in short order, but not so well-suited for safeguarding the common good.
Great article with some good stats, thanks OL!
August 24, 2005 @ 10:37 pm | Comment
9
By Other Lisa
My pleasure…I couldn’t quite get myself to come up with another post today, so I’m glad you liked this one…
August 25, 2005 @ 12:38 am | Comment
10
By Rob
I live in central Texas, where the Colorado river is interrupted by a series of dams that form what is known as the “highland lakes”.
Here: http://www.highlandlakes.com/
These dams have been of great help to central Texas. Before the dams, large rains would flood the entire Colorado river basin and some of those floods were catastrophic in the old days. Now, the dams hold back the majority of the flood waters and any flooding becomes localized to the place where the rains actually hit. They also even out the supply of water: lake levels rise when there’s plenty and fall when there isn’t. Rainwater from the wet winter is available in the dry summer.
Possibly there was some environmental damage back when they were built (restrictions were certainly looser back then), but they have important environmental positives too. It’s certainly helpful for all of the wildlife along the Colorado to have a constant, dependable water supply, for example. And the floods used to do pretty severe damage to the ecosystem too. And, of course, there are lots and lots of things that live in and on the lakes that had no place to live before.
My point is that it is certainly possible to manage a chain of dams and lakes along a river to the advantage of BOTH the people and the environment.
The problem is that it can’t be done by a totalitarian government. Such governments are, practically by defintion, shot through with corruption and fraud. It’s not surprising that all of the dirtiest air and worst water pollution and most horrible dump sites are in totalitarian (or formerly totalitarian) states.
I know this isn’t a popular place to say this, but if you really care about the environment all around the world, then you have to champion the spread of democracy and capitalism.
Never mind the rhetoric or the politics or the principles (and never mind what freedom means to people), just focus on the result: Free nations have a MUCH better history of taking care of their environments than totalitarian nations; partly because a free press can rouse the people to action when necessary and partly because free people have a greater sense of ownership. After all, some poor, displaced Chinese person has all they can do to feed their family; worrying about the environment is a luxury they just can’t afford.
August 25, 2005 @ 9:14 am | Comment
11
By Other Lisa
Rob, what gives you the idea that this isn’t a popular place to “champion democracy and capitalism”? That’s nonsense.
I do believe that unrestrained market forces – and first, can I say that there’s really no such thing in today’s globalized economy? 6000 page “Free Trade” agreements obviously aren’t “free” – it depends on whose terms such agrements are being negotiated – require a counterbalance of social justice – and that capitalism functions best in societies that provide a safety net for their citizens and some consensus on the common good – that’s really what the government is for, IMO – an expression of the peoples’ will.
August 25, 2005 @ 9:59 am | Comment
12
By Rob
Pardon me if I erred in lumping you in with that vast majority of the strident, anti-war Left who are also strident anti-globalists and anti-capitalists. Although you’ll have to admit it’s not an unnatural mistake.
I agree that government has a role in capitalism, although I think I would cast that role as more towards creating an environment of rule of law, a free press and useful standards rather than regulation. If you can get to the point where citizens have easy access to almost any information about nearly any enterprise (such as we are starting to see with “watchdog” blogs that target individual companies or NGOs), then regulation becomes less necessary and more cumbersome than it needs to be.
The phrase “social justice” is too big for me, though. Perhaps you would care to go into more detail of what you mean by this?
August 25, 2005 @ 12:12 pm | Comment
13
By Other Lisa
Rob, get a clue. Over 60% of Americans fall into the “anti-war” category at this point. I daresay the “vast majority” of this American majority are not “strident anti-globalists and anti-capitalists.” Frankly I am sick of the way mainstream liberal opinion has become smeared in this way.
I couldn’t possibly count how many times I have promoted the value of a free press and the strengthening of the rule of law on this and other forums, so I quite agree with you on those points. I would say that calling for “useful standards” rather than clear-cut regulations strikes me as providing too much wiggle room for powerful entities to avoid any real restrictions or sanctions for bad behavior but would be interested in hearing how such a system might work in principle.
By “social justice,” I mean paying people a livable wage, requiring a decent, safe working environment, protecting our natural environment, providing a social safety net for our most vulnerable citizens and access to basic healthcare and a decent education, regardless of one’s economic status. This is a laundry list and an ideal, “in a perfect world” list, but it’s something to work towards, I believe.
I’m working, so that’s about as much time as I have for this at the moment.
August 25, 2005 @ 1:09 pm | Comment
14
By Sam_S
Lisa, while you’re whapping Rob with the clue bat, take a swipe at the mainstream liberals. They’re the ones who’ve let the opinion stream become dominated by the nattering yammerers, or is that yammering natterers?
Rob, NEVER call Lisa “strident”. She’s elegantly, enthusiastically idealistic.
August 26, 2005 @ 3:03 am | Comment
15
By Thomas
Oh, DAM it all….it’s that old liberal/conservative thing again….
Now about the dams in China………
August 26, 2005 @ 8:11 am | Comment
16
By Other Lisa
Awww, Sam, thanks for that! I’ve been feeling kinda cranky – nay, borderline strident! – the last two days…
I’m happy to swing my clue-bat at idiot pundits of every political stripe. I pretty much don’t watch news – or more accurately “news product” – on TV. There’s hardly anyone or anything worth watching. I’d put Frontline in the worthy category, and I barely remember to watch that.
August 26, 2005 @ 10:28 am | Comment
17
By Mond
Very nice site!
September 16, 2005 @ 5:28 am | Comment