March 26, 2007
The debate over large dams
By Nusrat Khurshedi
WORLD Water Day once again raises the debate over large dams which is one of the most controversial issue that Pakistan is facing today. At the time of independence it was estimated that about 5000 cu/m of water was available for every citizen which has now been reduced to 1000 cu/m. The country receives merely only 200mm of annual rainfall, This results in the water table to sink at the rate of one to two meters per year. A significant proportion of rainwater is lost as surface run-off.
The run off losses from the cultivated portion of rain-fed areas is estimated at nearly six million acre-feet of water per year. On the other hand, due to less fresh water supply from the River Indus, the land becomes infertile by salt. Little rainfall deserted the region and mangrove forest which is vital for fish and shrimps spawning and protects the shoreline.
The production of major food grains and crops may be hit in the years to come due to water shortage. Projections of agricultural output show a shortfall of 11 million tons by 2010 and 16 million tons by 2020. If we fail to grapple successfully with the problem, by the year 2025, there will be shortage of 28 million tons of different food crops.
Pakistan needs to work urgently to better utilise its water resources by building of dams. But how this is to be done remains a centre of much controversy. So far 81 large, medium and small dams have been built across the country since 1947. Work on mega water projects including Neelum Jhelum Hydro Power Projects, Diamir Bhasha Dam, Kurram _ Tangi Dam (NWFP), Subak-Zai Dam (Balochistan), and Kachi Canal are underway. However, the most controversial dam still in the debating stage is Kalabagh dam.
Contribution of dams: The question arises that what has been the contribution of large dams to agriculture? Pakistan depends on irrigation and water resources for 90 per cent of its food and crop production. The vast irrigation system comprises three major storage reservoirs, 19 barrages or headwaters, 43 main canals with a conveyance length of 57,000km, and 89,000 watercourses with a running length of more than 1.65 million km.
This vast irrigation system feeds more than 40 million acres of irrigated land in Pakistan--a country with the highest irrigated and rain-fed land ratio in the world (4:1). On the question of how much of the increase in food production can be attributed exclusively to dams, there are different estimates ranging from 10--30 per cent.
Only 28.2 per cent of the total electricity is produced by water resources and the remaining 71.8 per cent is generated through expensive resources (68.8 per cent by fossil fuel and three per cent by nuclear resources). On the other hand, public water ââ¬â supply is not often a stated objective of large dams projects. In many cases reservoirs and canals are in fact, used for this purpose and also for meeting the industry demand.
Turning to flood control, the contribution of dams has been modest. Dams are not often planned with flood-moderation as a primary aim, and even where they are, the competing claims of irrigation and power generation often override the flood ââ¬â moderation function. While dams may indeed moderate flood flows to some extent under normal conditions, they may aggravate the position if, in the absence of a flood cushion, water has to be suddenly released in the interest of the safety of structure.
Disenchantment: However, disenchantment with large projects has been growing over the past two decades. The answer lies in a convergence of dissatisfaction with such projects from diverse point of view:
i. Financial/ economic: ââ¬Ëtime and cost overrunsââ¬â¢: an instable demand for resources; the failure of many projects to achieve the projected benefits; their inability to generate revenues for reinvestment or even for proper maintenance, partly because of the poor pricing of irrigation water.
ii. ââ¬ËPolitical economyââ¬â¢: the widespread perception of the prevalence of corruption and of the influence of vested interests in the planning and implementation of projects; serious inequities in the incidence of cost and benefits.
iii. Environmental / ecological concerns.
iv. Concern about the displacement of people, dissatisfaction with rehabilitation policies and practices and so on.
All these viewpoints are important but the large dams issue become a political instead of an environmental degradation and social impact issue. .
Human impact: In most cases, there will also be varying degrees of displacement of human settlements, with the attendant problems of resettlement and rehabilitation. This impact often falls on poor and disadvantage sections. There are inherent difficulties in resettlement and rehabilitation: a lack of full knowledge of the numbers and categories of people likely to be affected; separation of communities from the natural resources base on which they are dependent; inadequacy of land for land-based rehabilitation; scattering of well-knit communities; resettlement in distant and unfamiliar areas; difficulties with the host communities in the resettlement areas; major transformation in ways of living, loss of livelihood and old coping capabilities and the need to learn new skills and ways of living, and so on.
Along this, cash compensation is a principal vehicle for delivering resettlement benefits which is often been delayed, and when paid on time, has usually failed to compensate fully for the lost livelihoods.
Difficulties with EIA: In the first place, environmental and other concerns continue to be regarded as disagreeable external impositions; they have not become integral parts of projects planning from the start despite many ââ¬Ëguidelinesââ¬â¢ and instructions to this affect. Everyone pays lip service to these concerns but the prime interest is in the engineering aspects. The implicit assumption is that water planning is essentially a matter for engineers.
Second, environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are notoriously undependable. When the projects planners undertake them in-house, the desire to get the project approved may influence the EIA and render it suspect. For example, a consultant who says:ââ¬â¢ the impact of this project is too grave to be mitigated or offset and the project should not be undertakenââ¬â¢ is unlikely to secure many assignments. Later on the consultant could come under strong pressure from other official agencies for supporting the ââ¬Ëdevelopmentââ¬â¢.
Another factor is the cost-benefit calculus which is a flawed basis for decision-making because:
i. it is susceptible to manipulation (costs are usually under-stated and benefits overstated),
ii. it is necessarily incomplete and inadequate because not every aspect or dimension can be brought within the ambit of calculus; and,
iii. it is morally blind (the infliction of misery on some people is often sought to be justified on the ground that a larger number elsewhere will be benefited).
Looking at the ââ¬Ëpolitical economyââ¬â¢ aspect of such projects, it could be argued that inequalities, injustices, corruption, collusion etc., arise from the socio-political milieu and cannot be attributed to dams; but some of the inequities and ills are perhaps facilitated by, or at any rate associated with, large ââ¬â dam projects.
Are large dams avoidable? Keeping in mind the various impacts and consequences of large dams, the crucial question is: given the projected magnitudes of demand for water (linked to rates of population growth and urbanisation), are such projects avoidable.
A widely held view is that they are not. Such a linking holds that future needs cannot be met without massive ââ¬Ëwater resource developmentââ¬â¢. That expression is treated as synonymous with large ââ¬Ëstorageââ¬â¢ (i.e., dam and reservoir) projects; and that local rainwater harvesting and watershed development schemes although necessary, are bound to remain secondary and supplementary.
In terms of environmental, social and human impacts of large dams, there is a point that doing things has a cost; but there is also ââ¬Ëthe cost of not doingââ¬â¢. This argument is often reinforced by the rhetorical question: where would the country have been without Kalabagh Dam? ââ¬ËThe cost of not doingââ¬â¢ means merely that in the absence of the project, certain benefits would not be available. This is nothing more than the old argument that the benefits justify the costs.
It is fallacious to equate the non-undertaking of a large project with ââ¬Ënot doingââ¬â¢. As a result of delays in major large dams especialy Kalabagh and Diamer Bhasha Dam, Pakistan has suffered immensely in the agriculture and the energy sectors, directly and in industrial and manpower sectors indirectly. All these negative effects have, no doubt, contributed in a big way to the alarming situation faced by the national economy.
Such projects are definitely needed for generating hydroelectric power. Addition to generating capacity are called for; that a suitable thermal ââ¬â hydro mix is required for maintaining a proper balance between base-load and peaking capacities; and that hydroelectric power is ââ¬Ëcleanââ¬â¢ and does not create the kind of pollution that is incidental to coal-burning.
It is the time for planners, managers and researchers to get out of generalised approaches.. The water resource development issues, ground water sustainability, water stress, low efficiency of water use in the saline areas and non-agricultural uses, have specific and localised character. There is a genuine need to have a sound and scientific approach towards the large dams.
It is disappointing that, despite a variety of challenges, local scientists have not been stimulated to evolve alternative strategies if large dams not appropriate.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/03/26/ebr7.htm