This is a quick post to share a published source of a disturbing piece of information. This blog has several postings on the topic of resettlement of Tibetan nomadic herders. You can read them here and here. In another posting, I asked readers to share data (numbers) on actual government resettlement plans in Amdo (Qinghai) region.
A reader who wishes to remain anonymous pointed out an article by David Goodman published in 2004, in The China Quarterly, titled "Qinghai and the Emergence of the West: Nationalities, Communal Interaction and National Integration" (Vol. 178, pp: 379-399). On page 61 of this article, there is a disturbing sentence: "The [Qinghai] provincial government’s goal is to settle all nomads by 2011, claiming to have completed the process experimentally in Hainan district by the end of 2001."
If it is true that government plans to resettle ALL nomadic herders in the region, I wonder why people -- including experts I have consulted -- did not know or tell me about it?! Very strange.
Anyways, for further information, David Goodman's source for that information is: Wei Xingguo and Jing Fachang, “Hainan mumin quanbu shixian dingju” (“Hainan herdsmen now live in settlements”), Qinghai ribao, 28 January 2002, p. 1.
Read more on this article...
20 more dams on the sources of Yangtze (Drichu) River
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
About 400 Chinese water managers and bureaucrats have gathered in Shanghai for the 3rd Yangtze Forum, which began yesterday, to discuss about the condition and plans for development of the Yangtze River. The Associated Press reported today that an official said that at least 20 dams will be build on its headwater tributary rivers: Yalong (Nyachu), Dadu (Gyarong Ngulchu) and Wujiang rivers. China Daily quotes Cai Qihua, director of Yangtze Water Resources Committee, that currently only 36% of Yangtze hydropower potential is exploited. Plans are to increase its exploitation to 50% by 2020, and then to 60% by 2030 (as given in the graphic figure below). I suspect these plans do not consider the complex implications of climate change on future water availability in these rivers seriously enough.
My guess is that these twenty dams include those slated for the Western Route of the South-North Water Transfer Project. The size of these dams is staggering: 175 meters high dam on Nyachu (Yalong River) connected with 131 kilometer long tunnel, and a 296 meter high dam on Gyarong Ngulchu (Dadu River) connected by a nearly-30 kilometers long tunnel, and much more.
The only people who can stop China from undertaking these projects are the Chinese people. Chinese environmentalists, officials, academics, journalists, and citizens, should speak out to stop these projects before it is too late. Demand for proper environmental impact assessment of these projects is a good way to start discussion.
Read more on this article...
My guess is that these twenty dams include those slated for the Western Route of the South-North Water Transfer Project. The size of these dams is staggering: 175 meters high dam on Nyachu (Yalong River) connected with 131 kilometer long tunnel, and a 296 meter high dam on Gyarong Ngulchu (Dadu River) connected by a nearly-30 kilometers long tunnel, and much more.
The only people who can stop China from undertaking these projects are the Chinese people. Chinese environmentalists, officials, academics, journalists, and citizens, should speak out to stop these projects before it is too late. Demand for proper environmental impact assessment of these projects is a good way to start discussion.
Read more on this article...
India and China starts a Dams Race on the Brahmaputra River
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Worried that China might build a very big dam on the Brahmaputra River near its borders, India has recently approved two big dams of their own, "in principle", on the same river downstream in its state of Arunachal Pradesh. What is interesting, and disturbing at the same time, is that India is building these dams to pre-empt China by establishing a prior use claim.
A key member of India's Planning Council, Dr. Kirit Parikh, is reportedly pushing for this idea as "a broad strategic vision". I disagree with Dr. Parikh because China is not known for respecting riparian rights on international rivers. On the contrary, I think his words would only give more excuse for China to push ahead with their plans.
What follows is an editorial I wrote in 2004 in response to the news that India expressed concerns about Chinese plans then:
Let the Brahmaputra Flow
Tashi Tsering
Trin-Gyi-Pho-Nya: Tibet's Environment and Development Digest. January 12, 2004, Issue 4.
India finally expressed concern over Chinaís plans to divert the Brahmaputra River. In November 2003, several Indian news reports carried a story that the Indian state of Assamís Union Ministry of Water Resources asked their foreign affairs counterparts ìto seek factual detailsî about the project. Indiaís concerns became real after Chinaís official news agency, Xinhua, confirmed Chinaís intentions. According to Xinhua, preliminary studies of the water diversion project were conducted at the proposed construction site in mid-2003, followed by another round of feasibility studies in October. It would not be surprising if China denies having such plans, as did Tibet Autonomous Regionís Chairman, Xiang Ba Ping Cuo, at a press conference last August.
Construction of this mammoth multi-purpose project is tentatively scheduled to start in 2009. The main structures are planned in Tibetan areas of Pema Koe, near Indiaís northeastern border. The area is also known as the ìGreat Bendî of the Yarlung Tsangpo (Tibetan name for Brahmaputra) where the river takes a sharp U-turn to enter into India. At the Great Bend, the Tsangpo River descends over 3,000 meters in approximately 200 km, constituting one of the greatest hydropower potentials anywhere in the world. China hopes to build a hydroelectric plant there that would generate twice the electricity produced by the Three Gorges Dam, currently the worldís largest dam. Plans also include diverting the waters thousands of kilometers across the Tibetan Plateau to the ìthirstyî northwestern parts of China, into the provinces of Xinjiang and Gansu.
If undertaken, the project is bound to raise some serious transboundary issues. Claude Arpi, a Tibet-China-India analyst, called the project ìa declaration of warî by China. "When it comes to a transboundary question, where the boundary is not even agreed upon, it seems practically impossible to find a workable understanding," Arpi said. In addition to border disputes, the project would make India and Bangladesh dependent on China for release of water during the dry season, and for protection from floods during the wet season. Not to mention the adverse impacts on the millions of people living downstream when nutrient rich sediments and fish will be blocked by the dam. Arpi believes the most serious issue to be the fact that the Great Bend area is located in a highly earthquake prone area. "A huge reservoir and a few PNEs [Peaceful Nuclear Explosions, as proposed by Chinese scientists to make tunnels through the Himalayas for the project] could provoke new earthquakes even more devastating than in August 1950 when thousands died."
Such massive water control projects are clearly a state (central government) undertaking--without the economic and political support of the state, these projects cannot proceed. Unfortunately, and often ironically, national leaders prefer to marvel at their engineering accomplishments in controlling nature to serve economic development rather than addressing issues of transboundary and socio-environmental responsibilities. In fact, Chinaís plan to divert the Brahmaputra would impair India's own plan to link approximately thirty of its own rivers, a project that is bound to affect the downstream riparian state of Bangladesh.
Such international transboundary river development projects raise many important issues--from the comparative importance of national economic development to issues of social justice, from the primacy of territorial sovereignty to the merits of international cooperation. As important as these intractable topics of debate are, policy makers ought not to forget the real issue--the concern expressed by the affected people. After all, states exist to provide material and physical security to the people. The goal of development policies should be to benefit the people first, not powerful interest groups like corrupt bureaucracies and businesses.
While the Brahmaputra Diversion Plan will bring sizeable benefits to China in the form of construction jobs, electricity, and water for the "thirsty north," the price that the affected people and the environment must pay is clearly unacceptable. For the local Tibetans, the project is an imposition on their land and their birthright by the occupying Chinese government. The beneficiaries of the project are foreigners while "locals" are made to bear its price. If China is genuinely committed to human rights and sustainable development as it claims to be, then the Brahmaputra Diversion Plan should not be undertaken.
Read more on this article...
A key member of India's Planning Council, Dr. Kirit Parikh, is reportedly pushing for this idea as "a broad strategic vision". I disagree with Dr. Parikh because China is not known for respecting riparian rights on international rivers. On the contrary, I think his words would only give more excuse for China to push ahead with their plans. What follows is an editorial I wrote in 2004 in response to the news that India expressed concerns about Chinese plans then:
Let the Brahmaputra Flow
Tashi Tsering
Trin-Gyi-Pho-Nya: Tibet's Environment and Development Digest. January 12, 2004, Issue 4.
India finally expressed concern over Chinaís plans to divert the Brahmaputra River. In November 2003, several Indian news reports carried a story that the Indian state of Assamís Union Ministry of Water Resources asked their foreign affairs counterparts ìto seek factual detailsî about the project. Indiaís concerns became real after Chinaís official news agency, Xinhua, confirmed Chinaís intentions. According to Xinhua, preliminary studies of the water diversion project were conducted at the proposed construction site in mid-2003, followed by another round of feasibility studies in October. It would not be surprising if China denies having such plans, as did Tibet Autonomous Regionís Chairman, Xiang Ba Ping Cuo, at a press conference last August.
Construction of this mammoth multi-purpose project is tentatively scheduled to start in 2009. The main structures are planned in Tibetan areas of Pema Koe, near Indiaís northeastern border. The area is also known as the ìGreat Bendî of the Yarlung Tsangpo (Tibetan name for Brahmaputra) where the river takes a sharp U-turn to enter into India. At the Great Bend, the Tsangpo River descends over 3,000 meters in approximately 200 km, constituting one of the greatest hydropower potentials anywhere in the world. China hopes to build a hydroelectric plant there that would generate twice the electricity produced by the Three Gorges Dam, currently the worldís largest dam. Plans also include diverting the waters thousands of kilometers across the Tibetan Plateau to the ìthirstyî northwestern parts of China, into the provinces of Xinjiang and Gansu.
If undertaken, the project is bound to raise some serious transboundary issues. Claude Arpi, a Tibet-China-India analyst, called the project ìa declaration of warî by China. "When it comes to a transboundary question, where the boundary is not even agreed upon, it seems practically impossible to find a workable understanding," Arpi said. In addition to border disputes, the project would make India and Bangladesh dependent on China for release of water during the dry season, and for protection from floods during the wet season. Not to mention the adverse impacts on the millions of people living downstream when nutrient rich sediments and fish will be blocked by the dam. Arpi believes the most serious issue to be the fact that the Great Bend area is located in a highly earthquake prone area. "A huge reservoir and a few PNEs [Peaceful Nuclear Explosions, as proposed by Chinese scientists to make tunnels through the Himalayas for the project] could provoke new earthquakes even more devastating than in August 1950 when thousands died."
Such massive water control projects are clearly a state (central government) undertaking--without the economic and political support of the state, these projects cannot proceed. Unfortunately, and often ironically, national leaders prefer to marvel at their engineering accomplishments in controlling nature to serve economic development rather than addressing issues of transboundary and socio-environmental responsibilities. In fact, Chinaís plan to divert the Brahmaputra would impair India's own plan to link approximately thirty of its own rivers, a project that is bound to affect the downstream riparian state of Bangladesh.
Such international transboundary river development projects raise many important issues--from the comparative importance of national economic development to issues of social justice, from the primacy of territorial sovereignty to the merits of international cooperation. As important as these intractable topics of debate are, policy makers ought not to forget the real issue--the concern expressed by the affected people. After all, states exist to provide material and physical security to the people. The goal of development policies should be to benefit the people first, not powerful interest groups like corrupt bureaucracies and businesses.
While the Brahmaputra Diversion Plan will bring sizeable benefits to China in the form of construction jobs, electricity, and water for the "thirsty north," the price that the affected people and the environment must pay is clearly unacceptable. For the local Tibetans, the project is an imposition on their land and their birthright by the occupying Chinese government. The beneficiaries of the project are foreigners while "locals" are made to bear its price. If China is genuinely committed to human rights and sustainable development as it claims to be, then the Brahmaputra Diversion Plan should not be undertaken.
Read more on this article...
Uranium near Pangong Lake (སྤང་གོང་མཚོ༑) in Ladakh
Friday, April 10, 2009
I came across a news article from 2007 titled, "India finds uranium in icy Ladakh." It says that the uranium content (concentration) is the highest ever reported in India: as high as 5.36 percent compared to around 0.1 percent or less found in other sources of the country. If this is true, and if the reserves are significantly large, it is huge news (well, not any more) for India's nuclear program, especially for those who advocate India's nuclear independence and oppose the US-India nuclear deal. I actually travelled to that part of Ladakh, all the way to Spangmik Village of Pangong Lake, with a local freelance reporter, Tashi Morup . Here are some photos from that trip.
The fate of the people living in this corner of the world is uncertain. The farmers, pastoralists as well as nomads in this part of the region are concerned, nay, angry, at government plans to turn the region into a wildlife sanctuary. They are worried that government plans will impinge upon their traditional way of life. A wildlife sanctuary may restrict the number of livestock they can keep, limit their grazing area, ban collection wood, hunting and other such practices.
Read more on this article...
The fate of the people living in this corner of the world is uncertain. The farmers, pastoralists as well as nomads in this part of the region are concerned, nay, angry, at government plans to turn the region into a wildlife sanctuary. They are worried that government plans will impinge upon their traditional way of life. A wildlife sanctuary may restrict the number of livestock they can keep, limit their grazing area, ban collection wood, hunting and other such practices.
Read more on this article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
