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).
No comments:
Post a Comment