The River Chief System

Figure 1: The Dianchi Lake in Kunming, southwest China

Source: The BRICS Post, 2016

The water quality in the Dianchi Lake has been improved following the construction of a series of pollution control works, including construction of sewage treatment facilities and wetlands along the lake side. This year a total of 88 water environment treatment projects for Dianchi Lake will be started (The BRICS Post, 2016)

While China suffers from a shortage of water, what little water it does have is highly polluted and unsuitable for consumption. A great deal of Chinas ground and surface-waters have been polluted as industrial waste and agricultural byproducts as well as municipal waste find there way into rivers and lakes. It is estimated that 40% of China’s surface water is fit only for industrial and agricultural use and only half of the country’s major cities meet the standard for drinking water (Gleick, 2013).

The authorities in the Chinese capital Beijing, which is currently under a red alert smog warning, are now trying to tackle this issue of water pollution. A draft anti-water pollution piece of legislation was published in the Chinese press on Monday (Xinhua, 2016). It comes as an amendment of the Water Pollution Prevention Law.

It stipulates that local governments will be responsible to improve water quality and be empowered with the means to boost tougher anti-pollution laws. Local officials will be known as ‘river chiefs’ and they will manage all the rivers and lakes in their regions making sure they are protected (Global Times, 2016). Their responsibilities involve ecological restoration, control and prevention of pollution and protection of the water resource. They will be held accountable if environmental damage occurs in water bodies they've been assigned to, according to the guideline.

Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, told the Global Times that the river chief mechanism would better remind heads of local governments of their duties, urging them to coordinate the different departments for water protection. Ma noted that some local government heads used to place economic development above environmental protection.

"The effectiveness of the river chief mechanism depends on the accountability system and on whether the river chiefs would respond to public concerns in a timely manner," said Ma.

The guideline also stressed public involvement, saying river chiefs' names and responsibilities will be published for the public to read. The draft also focuses on means to protect city supplies of drinking water. It calls for local governments to draw up contingency plans to secure back-up water sources, particularly for regions where there is just one single source of water.

The Chinese government has for several years’ prioritised efforts to restrict chemical pollution of the air and water. The ministry of environmental protection issued a document listing 58 chemicals that will now require more restrictive registration, assessment and supervision. The report says that some banned toxicants are still being produced in China and that in some areas where drinking water is polluted, cancer rates have risen.

The river chief mechanism is expected to be implemented across the country by the end of 2018. It has been piloted in eight provinces and municipalities, including Beijing, Tianjin and East China's Zhejiang Province. This more intimate system of monitoring, prevention and protection should help improve water quality. For some time local governments and officials have been prioritising economic growth over environmental protection and these new laws are a step in the right direction.  

The South-to-North Water Diversion Project: an Economists Perspective

In this post I wanted to continue my discussion of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (SNWDP). I recently read an Economist article from 2014 that reveals many of inadequacies and controversies surrounding the SNWDP. With the SNWDP being China’s flagship project in its search for water security I believe a more in depth analysis is necessary.

The idea for this vast diversion project has its roots in communist government as it was first suggested by Mao in 1952. While work began on this project 50 years later in a much more open and democratic China, it still embraces the communist ideals of progress at all cost. What I mean by this, is that the displacement of 330,000 people to make way for the central route, is not seen as too much of an issue. The government is happy to move whole villages long distances, far from their farms or work. This to me seems obscene; I think that only China, with the exception of North Korea, would even contemplate relocating such a large number of people. These people have had their lives uprooted and now live in small apartment blocks with barely enough money from the government to afford the rent.

The Economist article also analyses the supposed benefits of the project. The government believes that a third of Beijing’s total water demands will be met solely by this water transfer (Economist, 2014). However this share will decrease as population and industry expands, increasing Chinas overall demand. The article suggests that by transferring this water the Chinese government are promoting and enabling further growth of water intensive industries. It is suggested that in the long run the project could potentially increase the pressure on water resources in the north.

Furthermore there are considerable health and environmental impacts. Re-routing the river from the south to the north has the potential to spread southern tropical diseases, such as schistosomiasis, a particularly nasty debilitating disease. The extraction of water from southern rivers such as the Yangzi will reduce there flow which could make costal water resources very susceptible to seawater intrusion. With southern water supplies polluted, the south could quickly become as water scarce as the north.

As I discussed in my previous post the estimated cost of $62 billion is astronomical, and makes the original projected cost of $15 billion look pathetic. The $62 billion figure becomes even more outrageous when you consider that this doesn’t include the cost of running and maintain the project, nor does it include the cost of building 13 water treatment plants to purify the water (Economist, 2014). It seems then that the SNWDP, with its exorbitant cost and significant social and environmental impacts is not the solution to China’s water crisis.

The Economist article argues the point that simply increasing the supply of water in the short term is doing nothing to confront the real problem: inefficient use and high demand of water (simply put demand is outstripping supply). A 2009 World Bank report claims that Chinese industry consumes ten times more water per unit of production than other industrialised states. The reason for this inefficiency is that water in China is incredibly cheap. There has been an attempt to push up prices, in may 2014 the government introduced a policy that increases the price of tap water the more it is used (Reuters, 2014). However water prices are still well below average market levels. There is also a huge amount of unregulated extraction of groundwater by farmers and villagers despite seriously low levels.

If the central government could implement and sustain a price hike for water especially for water used in industry it would cut demand and lead to much more efficient use. If special high rates were applied to water scarce regions then this would help protect those regions from water intensive industry. It is often the case that the arid regions surrounding large desiccated cities such as Beijing are often forced to pipe what little water they have to the city. If higher water prices were implemented, these regions could offset the loss of their water through the higher tariffs.

This concept of higher prices, however, is not too popular in government. Officials fear that higher prices will slow down industrial growth and could potentially scare them away from cities. There is also the prospect of civil unrest and protests from residents. Hence China prefers to tackle the problem with money and huge infrastructure projects. However it has become clear to all that this strategy will not solve the problem. It might however keep the taps on for a few more years, and we must always remember that in China ‘politics is thicker than water’ (Economist, 2014).

China’s Dam Building Spree

There has been a general decline in interest in building big dams amongst state planners and water management experts due in part to their considerable environmental impacts. China however believes that the environmental impacts of their dams are ‘in hand’ (Ball, 2015). Today China is home to more than 87,000 dams with plans for many more in progress (International Rivers, 2016). It is China’s lack of clean water that is driving this dam building boom. Dams address two main issues of China’s water security, one being that dams produce hydroelectric power, a clean renewable energy source. This means they can be less reliant on polluting, water intensive methods of energy production such as the coal-fired plants. Secondly the dams can help to address the uneven distribution in China’s water resources. By building dams in the north they can help to build up reservoirs and store fresh water in what is generally an arid climate.

The Three Gorges Dam located on the Yangtze River is the world’s largest dam at 185m high and almost two kilometres wide, it is made up from some 30 million cubic metres of concrete and holds a reservoir of 31,000 square miles (Ball, 2015). The dam has the capacity to produce a gigantic 18.2 GW of power; this is almost 10 times what the Hoover Dam in America can produce. This dam however is more than just an energy and water resource, it is clear that China regards the dam as a political symbol, a show of its technological and economic might. 

Figure 1: The Three Gorges Dam 

Source: Science Photo Library 

“The Three Gorges Dam will show the rest of the world that the Chinese people have high aspirations and the capacity to successfully build the world’s largest water conservancy and hydroelectric power project.” Says Chinese Premier Li Peng (Ball, 2015).

The building of this dam has come at a considerable ecological, economic and social cost. The dam itself destroyed a huge area of land in order to store water as the reservoir filled up, a number of priceless national heritage sites were also lost. Also the build up of sediment behind the dam, will in some critics opinion, increase the risk of flooding upriver in Sichuan province. There have also been concerns about the dams’ vulnerability to earthquakes. Furthermore the dam is thought to increase the risk of earthquakes due to the added weight of the water behind the dam. There have been a number of incidents including landslides and seismic activity since the dam was completed. However the most controversial issue relates to the forced relocation of the residents whose homes were located in the new reservoir basin. 1.5 million people were displaced and relocated with very little thought for their welfare.

Part of China’s plan to build large reservoirs in the north has caused international concern especially in the countries that lie downstream of the dams. Many rivers in the region have their source in the Himalayas and they run down through China or China controlled Tibet into India and Bangladesh. Beijing’s plans to harness the waters of the rivers in Tibet could potentially have significant socio-economic consequences for the downstream countries. This is a cause for concern for the international community, because while the issue is still relatively low key there is potential for this to lead to conflict. China shows no signs of slowing down and currently has plans for 36 more dams on the rivers and tributaries in Tibet, including a 510 MW dam at Zangmu on the Brahmaputra (Dwivedi, 2016). However it is difficult to blame China too much as they do have a restricted territorial sovereignty due to there status as the up river state. Also we must consider the fact that China’s water and energy demands are expected to grow in the coming years and with their remarkable economic growth finally stalling they must take full advantage of there natural resources.