[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Damming Kalabagh
>Return-Path: <owner-irn-narmada@igc.org>
>Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:08:53 -0800
>From: Maqbool Khan Aliani <maliani@fecrc.com> (by way of patrick@irn.org
(Patrick
> McCully))
>Sender: owner-irn-narmada@igc.org
>Subject: Damming Kalabagh
>To: irn-wcd@igc.apc.org, irn-narmada@igc.apc.org
>X-Sender: patrick@pop.igc.org
>
>Damming Kalabagh
>by
>
>Aly Ercelawn and Muhammad Nauman
>
>
>A commentary on the Kalabagh Dam issue from CREED (Citizens Alliance in
>Reforms for Efficient and Equitable Development) See ongoing discussion
>
>
>Is the state acting wisely in its insistence upon building Kalabagh Dam?
>The Council of Common Interests met about a month ago, only to shelve the
>proposal. Instead, it set up a committee to persuade the other provinces
>to agree to what is essentially Panjab's case for the dam. The subsequent
>crisis over nuclear tests apparently side-tracked the committee's
>functioning. With unseemly haste, Islamabad then took cover of its
>suspension of fundamental rights to unilaterally announce the damming of
>Kalabagh. With the fervour of evangelists, some spokesmen in Islamabad and
>Lahore preach endlessly about the benefits of Kalabagh, while others
>mindlessly belittle the fears of severe and sustained adverse impacts.
>Following the elitist manner in which development agendas are formulated
>and implemented in Pakistan, the state has now deigned to renew
>consultations and debates between provinces, i.e. the political
>establishment, rather than to negotiate consent from the people of
>affected communities.
>
>WATER
>
>Proponents of Kalabagh, as the dam lobby usually does, paint a grim
>picture of future unmet food and energy needs for a rapidly growing
>population (closer to 3%, despite wishes to the contrary). By all
>indications, it would be cheaper to invest in reducing population growth
>rather than build endless dams to feed and electrify a largely illiterate
>nation of muslim men and women. Its not as if Islam is a hindrance to
>smaller families - both Indonesia and Iran have brought their fertility
>rates down to less than 3 children as compared to more than 5 in Pakistan.
>Why cannot we begin by damming the floods of illiteracy and ill-health
>among our mothers, and the sisters and daughters that are mothers-to-be?
>
>Kalabagh dam is supposed to function on the basis of "water that runs
>wasted into the sea." A seemingly sensible statement, which is a favourite
>of the WAPDA Chairman amongst others of the mountains and plains.
>Regrettably, this is a fantasy that runs counter to the known facts.
>First, there is no such thing as waste in natural ecological systems.
>Fresh water flows support the entire coastal ecology, and any further
>reduction will simply add to the enormous damage to the Indus delta
>imposed by previously constructed dams. Its not just the mangrove forests
>and the fishes that are affected, but the millions of peasants and
>fisherfolk of the coastal districts whose livelihoods will be destroyed.
>All reliable estimates suggest that fresh water flows are already much,
>much below what is required to sustain the present ecological system, and
>things will get worse when an impecunious Karachi increases its intakes
>from the Indus. A bad Water Accord does not mean that we should worsen
>matters further, anymore than thrusting an inequitable National Finance
>Award implies that Islamabad can further fiscally devastate Sindh without
>protest and resistance.
>
>Yet another variant of the "wasted water" fantasy is that there is more
>water available up North than has been allocated by the Water Accord.
>WAPDA is a past master at fudging data, and this is precisely what has
>been done. Using selective data, Kalabagh is shown by WAPDA to have enough
>water to fill up the reservoir in most years. As established by Abdul
>Majid Kazi and A. N. G. Abbasi, among others, the actual case is the
>opposite: there will be enough water in only one of every five years.
>Unless Kalabagh is provided water that is diverted from the shares of
>other provinces, in violation of the Water Accord. If this is not to
>happen, Kalabagh will lie under- utilised. It is more likely that the
>presence of Kalabagh dam will provide incentives to divert water in tight
>years, with or without the connivance of the Centre, as is evident from
>the many years of Chashma releases in violation of the Accord. Discord and
>fragmentation is surely likely to follow.
>
>Federal Ministers defend the dam as a compensation for rapid sedimentation
>which reduces the amount of storage at Tarbela. One does know what to make
>of their convenient ignorance of, or indifference to, a recent
>international study. From what has been summarised about it by the
>consultants in DFID's WATER, the sedimentation problem can be resolved at
>10 percent of the cost of building a new dam for an equivalent additional
>water storage capacity. Official spokesmen also fail to tell us why it is
>infeasible or more costly to increase Tarbela storage capacity by raising
>the height of the reservoir, an option built into the design of Tarbela.
>
>Consider also the reluctance of Islamabad to examine the most appealing
>alternative to Kalabagh and all major dams. At present, only a third of
>irrigation water is actually utilised by crops themselves. Among those who
>have studied the issue, such as Ayub Qutub of PIEDAR, a nation-wide
>program of investments in water conservation is estimated to cost a
>trivial sum in comparison to any dam. As with the Tarbela sedimentation
>solution, there will be no dislocation or displacement of tens of
>thousands of people.
>
>An outstanding advantage of this decentralised, people-friendly solution
>is that it is also very favourable to the land and soils that sustain our
>lives. Water conservation will reduce water-logging and salinity, quite
>the opposite of Kalabagh dam which will not only render large areas
>infertile in the neighbourhood of the dam but also accelerate soil
>degradation throughout the newly irrigated areas. If Kalabagh gets built,
>it will demand even greater resources for drainage than the billions
>already envisaged under the 25-year National Drainage Plan. Moreover, this
>Plan itself can become an ecological nightmare for the coastal districts
>which are planned to receive the entire effluent from Sindh and Panjab.
>
>POWER
>
>The power-hungry of Islamabad and Lahore point to Kalabagh's large energy
>output as a major benefit to the nation. The key point in their argument
>is that public hydel power has been historically substantially cheaper
>than current private thermal power. The flaws in this argument are many.
>First, hydel power is cheaper only if the capital for dam construction is
>obtained at heavily subsidised interest rates, and those adversely
>affected are compelled into accepting miserably low compensation and
>wholly inadequate resettlement (such as in Tarbela). Second, hydel power
>will not come cheap if the turbines lie silent for four of every five
>years. Third, unless Islamabad reneges on the private power contracts and
>fails to complete the Ghazi Barotha Hydropower Project, or launches into
>an unlikely hyper growth, there are no realistic scenarios of a power
>supply shortage that requires another major dam. Fourth, there is no
>likelihood that additional "cheap" hydel power will be distributed across
>the country in proportions anywhere close to the widespread burdens of
>Kalabagh dam as a "national" project.
>
>ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
>
>In addition to the adverse consequences we have listed above, there are
>the well-known fears of people in areas surrounding Kalabagh about an
>increased risk of devastation from floods. Proposed technical
>modifications are unconvincing to them, and we were certainly not
>convinced by the dammers who spoke at a recent seminar. As with nuclear
>war, it is absurd to minimise the scale of destruction by referring to low
>probabilities of occurrence in a good command and control system.
>
>Kalabagh dam will result in the direct dislocation of about a hundred
>thousand men, women, and children whose homes and lands will be submerged
>by the reservoir. Spokesmen for the dam are singing rhapsodies of houses,
>hospitals, schools and colleges for the displaced. Priests of a fake
>order, they ignore the record of resettlement. After nearly three decades,
>the victims of Tarbela still await restitution by an uncaring State, a
>greedy nation, and selfish provincial leadership. Chotiari resettlement
>promises to be yet another mess, and the people of Ghazi Barotha are faced
>with empty promises and endless delays. Federal and provincial governments
>and agencies, local and international consultants, aid donors of all hues
>- all get handsomely paid to endlessly plan, implement, and supervise the
>agonies of our people.
>
>FUNDING
>
>Proponents expect to get international funding at highly concessional
>rates for building Kalabagh dam. Even if there were no sanctions against
>our nuclear ambitions, it is most unlikely that either the World Bank or
>the Asian Development Bank would offer such funding. The reasons for
>rejecting Kalabagh would at the very least include their support to full
>utilisation of private thermal capacity, and their reluctance to get
>embroiled in a project with such major negative environmental and
>resettlement outcomes. In fact, when the World Bank gets around to
>recalling its own covenants, Ghazi Barotha should face suspension of
>funding because of the failure of the government to resolve outstanding
>claims of Tarbela resettlement.
>
>Private infrastructure funding does not come cheap, as we all painfully
>know from the thermal projects. Such funding will therefore render
>Kalabagh dam unattractive, specially if those adversely affected across
>the nation are compensated fairly. Moreover, it is not obvious that the
>proponents of Kalabagh are indeed ready for the complete privatisation of
>irrigation water that this step would necessarily entail.
>
>What of a national infrastructure fund that diverts tax resources to this
>project? As long as dam benefits and costs are distributed so unfairly, it
>would be a travesty of a federation to use federal resources for this
>purpose. It would be far more equitable to borrow only from areas that
>will benefit directly and appreciably, and impose user charges on the same
>areas to retire the special debt.
>
>CONCLUSION
>
>The controversy surrounding Kalabagh is intense and wide-ranging: from the
>very need for any large-scale dam to the ability of effective mitigation
>and fair compensation for adverse environmental and social impacts. In
>consequence, opposition to the dam is both intensive and extensive, and is
>highly likely to come under international scrutiny. In fact, if the
>government is up to the challenge, the Kalabagh dam proposal should be
>sent for scrutiny by the World Dams Commission. Information gaps remain an
>obstacle to informed debate and discussion, in part because of the very
>low credibility of government and its agencies, both federal and
>provincial.
>
>We believe that the Centre has taken a most unwise step in proposing the
>construction of Kalabagh Dam. All the information now publicly available
>establishes that the proposal suffers from a series of shortcomings which
>render irrigation and power benefits extremely dubious. If these benefits
>are increased to become more certainly sizeable for a small section of
>capitalist farmers and industrialists in a limited part of the country,
>their adverse consequences will impoverish the livelihoods of a
>substantially larger mass of ordinary citizens across the country.
>
>There is an urgent need for broad-based, public consultations on crucial
>issues of moral and legal rights to life and livelihood that surround
>claims to water. Any prior interventions by the state and its donors which
>affect historic claims to the Indus waters will be largely viewed as
>arrogant and oppressive repudiation by State and Centre of such
>fundamental rights in a democratic federation of communities and citizens.
>Only in recognising this can we seriously begin work towards forging a
>national consensus on whether or not to build Kalabagh or any other dam.
>Meetings of the Council of Common Interests will remain a poor substitute
>for responsible and responsive governance.
>
>If they are sincere, what should dam proponents do about a better
>understanding of their case? First, government and its agencies need to
>come clean with all documentation about Kalabagh. Second, prepare
>additional documentation to publicly disseminate realistic estimates of
>dam benefits, damages, and both direct and indirect costs -- not just
>their scale and probability but also to which groups in what areas of the
>country. Third, dam lobbyists should not be content with discussing this
>information with political elites in federal and provincial legislatures
>with whom they can always strike deals on the basis of class and cultural
>affinity and interests. The real developmental challenge to the state is
>to transparently negotiate with the millions of ordinary citizens in the
>thousands of communities in the federation of provinces. Is civil society
>upto the task of supporting citizens in these negotiations? Its hard work
>for all, but why should good governance be thought of as a mandate for any
>kind of laziness?
>
>When the Centre in Lahore and Islamabad defends the construction of
>Kalabagh with public resources of the federation, it can do so only on the
>basis of a socially abstract calculus of national development, and the
>ideology of a majoritarian state -- which alone can justify greater
>inequity and poverty among its peoples, devalue community rights over
>resources, and blatantly promote territorial expansion by the Centre. All
>of these are ominous portents for Pakistan as a just, equitable, and
>democratic federation. We must therefore actively support all local voices
>for resistance against the greed and callousness that threatens to
>devastate life and livelihoods of vast numbers of poor across our country.
>
>(http://sangat.org/creed) Citizens Alliance in Reforms for Efficient and
>Equitable Development (CREED) 44 Darulaman Society 7/8 Sharea Faisel
>Karachi PAKISTAN ph (9221) 453-0668 452-8884 499-0566 fax 454-9219
>499-0566 777-2752
>
>
>
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Dianne Murray,
Coordinator, Dam-Reservoir Working Group
Webmistress, Dam-Reservoir Impact and Information Archive
http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/dams
vox: 1-613-520-2757 fax:1-613-520-3898 e: dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
Home of Project Pisces: fish need flow!
><((((º>`·.¸·´¯`·¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·.¸.><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`¸><((((º>