|
Water wars: Pakistani provinces clash
over mega dam
Lahore, Pakistan, Feb. 19— Pakistan’s southern province
of Sindh has become a rallying point for protests and hunger strikes
against two huge water projects, which activists claim will benefit
only the eastern province of Punjab and deny other states their share.
Last week, 11 members of the Jiye Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM) began a fast
till death in Karachi, the capital of the province, demanding that the
government abandon the Kalabagh dam and the Greater Thal Canal projects.
JSQM chairman Bashir Qureshi claims his movement has the backing of
the 40 million people of Sindh. “The Sindh assembly, all political,
religious, and nationalist parties — irrespective of ideology —
have given the thumbs-down to the controversial water projects,”
said Qureshi.
Said Qadir Magsi, chief of the Sindh Taraqi Passand Party, “World
powers exaggerate the issue of weapons of mass destruction. But the
Kalabagh dam will kill 40 million people of Sindh, 30 million of the
North West Frontier Provance (NWFP) and 15 million of Balochistan.”
Calling Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf an enemy of Pakistan, the
provincial president of Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s
Party, Nisar Khuhro, said his party will not sit idle when the interests
of Pakistan are threatened.
At the center of the controversy is the Kalabagh dam, to be located
on the Indus river, 100 miles southwest of Islamabad. It was conceived
by the government in 1953 and a project report in 1984 tried to establish
the technical and economic feasibility of the project. The Water and
Power Development Authority’s latest brief on the project says,
“It is expected to be a 260-foot high structure that will create
a 6.1 million acre feet (MAF) reservoir of usable storage.”
The project will also generate 2,400 MW of power and this may later
be increased to 3,600 MW, making Kalabagh one of the largest hydroelectric
dams in Asia. The total cost of the civil and power facilities is estimated
at $5 billion.
The second project is the Greater Thal Canal, which, along with its
branches, will be 1,221 miles long. The project is estimated to cost
$610 million and will be completed in seven years, providing irrigation
facilities to 1.9 million acres in Punjab province.
Opposition from Sindh and the NWFP to both projects is strong because
people cutting across the political spectrum believe that Punjab wants
to hog the lion’s share of Pakistan’s river water.
Last month, at a meeting of the political committee, which has to make
recommendations on new dams by June 2004, differences among the four
provinces spilled into the open.
While Sindh, NWFP, and the western province of Balochistan called for
removing mistrust, Punjab wanted everyone to get cracking.
Sindh representative Syed Qamaruzzaman Shah rejects the construction
of the Kalabagh dam, saying that Sindhis could not trust anybody because
of past experiences. “The Water Accord 1991 is not being implemented
and Sindh has not yet been provided money announced for the rehabilitation
of its irrigation system,” he said.
Shah also questions why the authorities won’t make public the design
of the Kalabagh dam, if it is really a storage reservoir as claimed.
Sharreff Nisar Leghari, a member of the Sindh provincial assembly, also
says no to the dam. “Sindhis are not ready to allow new dams because
of the climate of mistrust, and they demand new storage sites in Sindh
province instead of in Punjab,” he said.
Sardar Muhammad Khan, a member of the Balochistan assembly, issued a
darker threat. “The federating units cannot co-exist till equality
prevails,” he said.
But Sindh Minister for Inter-Provincial Coordination, Nadir Akmal Khan
Leghari, said that rumors regarding the starting of construction work
of the Kalabagh dam are part of the opposition’s disinformation
drive.
He explains that before initiating the construction of the dam, the
consensus of all the four provinces, especially Sindh, will be sought
and their apprehensions removed.
Leghari denied that Punjab is involved in siphoning water. According
to him, the construction of new reservoirs is necessary to overcome
the water shortage. He said his ministry has focused on solving the
problems faced by Sindh and in this regard, the paper work has been
completed, while talks are under way with Punjab and Balochistan.
But water expert Amjad Hussain asserts that the human and material costs
of the Kalabagh dam far outweigh its benefits and will only ensure the
penury of future generations.
“For a fraction of the money earmarked for Kalabagh, 105,000 water
courses in Pakistan could be lined and farmers trained to level farms
and manage water,” Hussain maintained. He said this will reclaim
at least 10-12 MAF of water, almost double the storage capacity of Kalabagh,
and significantly reduce waterlogging and soil degradation.
Environmentalist Muhmmad Tanveer says that large dams have already played
havoc with marine life and depleted wetlands in the Indus delta, spread
over 300 square kilometers.
Because of impediments upstream, the area covered by mangrove forests
has reduced from 3 million hectares to 100,000 hectares. Riverine forests
on the banks of the Indus also face extinction, warns Tanveer.
Another ecological nightmare is the gradual ingress of the sea. Some
1.2 million acres of agricultural land have so far been devoured by
the sea, threatening the livelihood of 400,000 fishermen and their dependents
residing along the 100-km Sindh coastline.
Irrigation expert and political leader Mubashir Hasan fears a political
disaster if Pakistan presses ahead with the Kalabagh dam and Greater
Thal Canal. “The project should not be launched, no matter how
useful or beneficial it is for the proponents, as other provinces don’t
like it at all,” he argues.
In his opinion, the technical case for building a dam is not weak. “But
it would be virtual suicide if it is not backed by political consensus.
Let the provinces have political and administrative autonomy and they
will approve not one but many dams,” he says.
Hasan believes there should be more openness to remove all misgivings.
He says Pakistan should make public the design of the dam, along with
the cost estimates.
But then, transparency has never been this government’s strong
point
Source: OneWorld.net
Not much to celebrate in biodiversity
pact - critics
By Sabrina Ooi
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Feb. 20 (IPS)— Environment officials
from 120 countries consider a success their signing of a declaration
of a global biodiversity Feb. 20, but critics say they find little to
celebrate because key green provisions have been watered down in the
two-week negotiations.
The skepticism that greeted the optimism of the officials who signed
the Kuala Lumpur Declaration of the Convention of Biological Diversity
was highlighted by a mock event by activists who took a cynical stab
at biopiracy and the multinational firms they say exploit the genetic
resources of developing countries
It was further colored by the continued pleas by a group of children
representing the group Kids for Forest. “Adults should honor their
promises through action,” said 13-year old Joshua Hennechart from
Germany. “If we don’t do something to save the forests and
oceans now, we will have nothing in the future.”
At the same time, some delegates say that the declaration, which comes
at the end of Feb. 9-20 negotiations, has only served to fast-track
the road to depletion of the Earth’s biological resources. The
treaty’s core values to conserve, to apply sustainable means in
using these resources, and to share benefits arising from them have
been watered down significantly, critics say.
Therefore, the pledge by governments at the seventh meeting of parties
to the 10-year-old Convention on Biological Diversity to halt environmental
degradation significantly by 2010 remains — in the words of geneticist,
environmentalist and scientist David Suzuki — “ridiculous.”
Former Malaysian ambassador Ting Wen Lian, also head of the convention
secretariat, described the 300-page draft document of the decisions
of the delegation as “unbelievable.” She said that the treaty
had entered into detailed programs in areas which it did not cover,
adding that developed countries must wake up to the fact that poverty
destroys biodiversity. Simone Lovera from Friends of the Environment
International said the trend of the negotiations favored the multinationals,
in particular the biotechnology corporations.
She said that the stand taken on “Terminator” technology is
“pathetic” because not banning it and by allowing field-testing
to continue is contrary to the “precautionary principle” in
cases of scientific uncertainty and upon which the whole treaty is based.
“Terminator” technology renders seeds infertile in subsequent
generations so that farmers are forced to return to the transnational
firms to buy seeds rather than use what they have stored, as in traditional
farming
This may hold up to 1.4 billion farmers worldwide hostage to multinational
agrochemical corporations, because these genetically engineered plants
produce seeds that will not germinate if replanted. There is also the
matter of potential health and environmental hazards of this technology.
Already, the US-based Delta & Pine Land, the world’s largest
cotton seed company, has announced plans to commercialize its Technology
Protection System, the proprietary method used to produce Terminator
seeds.
Clearly, Lovera argues, the time for talking and studying should be
over by now.
But instead, the text in the declaration has been further diluted. Instead
of having governments “request” the consideration of the potential
adverse socio-economic impact of this technology, they now only “urge”
this.
Moreover, the Britain-based Intermediate Technology Development Group
(ITDG) reported that life sciences corporations — the only beneficiary
of a technology that, by definition, increases their control over seeds
— may now have a seat at the negotiating table as well.
Patrick Mulvany of ITDG said that discussions on access and benefit
sharing “progressed poorly.” This is because the rights of
indigenous groups, local community and farmers were eroded in favor
of wording that favored access by the developed countries, he added.
“Technology transfer discussions were mired in demands that the
South opens up to proprietary technologies that will force recipients
to repatriate funds to the Northern Life Sciences corporations that
own the patents,” he added.
To pre-empt what he called a further watering down of the effectiveness
of the biodiversity treaty, A. H. Zakri, director of the United Nations
University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), suggested a possible
solution.
The approach calls for an agreement on the basic perimeters of the potential
intellectual property regime at the outset, specifying which components
would be treated under international law, and what should be left to
domestic legislation. This approach, he said, is gaining credibility.
In a joint report with W. Bradnee Chambers, senior program coordinator
of UNU-IAS, Zakri highlighted the need to adjust to the global intellectual
property regime, which requires patentees to disclose the origin of
the material in their patent applications.
This proposal is potentially controversial because it would require
adjustments to be made in international patent standards under the World
Trade Organization.
Sensitive as it may be, many experts believe that this would be an effective
means to avoid foreign commercialization without the express permission
of the owners.
The report also recommends the creation of an international ombudsman
such as the United Nations, where infringements and opportunities for
redress could be taken up.
The 8th meeting of parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
will meet again in Brazil in 2006.
Guaraní aquifer and allegations
of terrorist presence
By Marcela Valente
Buenos Aires, Argentina, Feb. 17 (IPS)— Civil society groups
in the tri-border region where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay come together
are planning their own “social forum” this year to protest
what they see as the underlying objective behind US allegations of a
terrorist presence in the area.
The groups organizing the social forum believe Washington is seeking
to gain control, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, of access
to the Guaraní aquifer, the largest underground freshwater reservoir
in South America and perhaps the largest in the world.
The aquifer underlies the four members of the Mercosur trade bloc: Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.
The Tri-Border Region Social Forum is scheduled for June 25-27 in the
Argentine city of Puerto Iguazú, as part of the World Social
Forum, the global movement that met in January 2001, 2002 and 2003 in
Porto Alegre, Brazil and last month in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India.
Regional or country social forums, like the one that will be held in
June, are also periodically organized within the framework of the WSF.
The movement opposed to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is
helping to organize the June social forum.
The WSF has expressed its fears of a growing US military presence in
Latin America through US bases operating in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia,
Ecuador, Panama and Peru.
The Latin American civil society groups organizing the June social forum
say that objective will only be strengthened if the FTAA is created
in late 2005 as projected.
But up to now there had only been isolated comments and observations
on the possible link between US and Israeli accusations that “terrorist
cells” operate in the tri-border region, and what civil society
groups have described as Washington’s attempts to increase military
control over that area, where the cities of Puerto Iguazú, Foz
do Iguazú (Brazil) and Ciudad del Este (Paraguay) are located.
“Claims that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq
served to justify unjustifiable actions there. Now they’re doing
the same thing with the tri-border region: creating an enemy through
press reports, with the aim of controlling the region’s strategic
natural resources,” Miguel Serdiuk, coordinator of the tri-border
region social forum, told IPS.
US and Israeli intelligence services began to talk about the alleged
presence of operatives from the Lebanon-based Hezbollah and other groups
reportedly sympathetic to the al-Qaida terrorist network after a 1992
blast in the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 bombing of
AMIA, a Jewish community center in that city, which left a combined
death toll of more than 110.
The US government holds al-Qaida responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. After the attacks, US
allegations of a terrorist presence in the tri-border region increased.
In the past few weeks, the media in Israel have once again been focusing
on the supposed presence of terrorists in the tri-border area.
The US State Department admitted on Feb. 10 that it has uncovered no
“credible information” on an established terrorist presence
there.
However, it did state that “terrorist supporters” in the area
are “primarily engaged in fundraising” for groups like Hezbollah
and Hamas.
According to the State Department, the “tri-border region has long
been of interest to the United States...and we have undertaken initiatives
both bilaterally and multilaterally to understand the true nature of
the threat and to design the most appropriate counter terrorist measures.”
Activists say such talk is aimed at creating the conditions for the
United States to gain a foothold in the tri-border area, with a view
to gaining access to the Guaraní aquifer.
An aquifer is a water-bearing stratum of permeable rock, sand or gravel.
The Guaraní is actually a system of aquifers that underlies an
area of approximately 1.2 million square kms: 840,000 in Brazil, 225,000
in Argentina, 71,700 in Paraguay and 58,500 in Uruguay.
Experts estimate that the Guaraní aquifer holds permanent reserves
of 45,000 cubic kms of water, with an exploitable volume of between
40 and 80 cubic kms a year.
Much of the water in the aquifer is under pressure, which saves on pumping
costs. In the central zone, geothermal heat produces hot springs. In
other parts, the water is at a depth of 1,500 meters below sea level.
Brazil makes the greatest use of the aquifer, which totally or partially
supplies more than 300 cities and towns with drinking water, including
Sao Paulo, population 18 million, Brazil’s largest city.
Studies estimate that the aquifer could supply the entire population
of the world for 200 years, at a daily consumption rate of 100 liters
per person.
However, environmentalists warn that the rising volumes of water extracted
from the aquifer and pollution from agro-chemicals and urban and industrial
waste threaten the reserves that millions of people depend on for clean
water.
The hot springs tourism industry and the future of the aquifer’s
geothermal potential as a source of clean energy are also endangered.
The four countries that share the aquifer agreed to create an “Environmental
Protection and Sustainable Development of the Guarani Aquifer System
Project,” to gain a detailed understanding of the aquifer and implement
a common institutional and technical framework for the joint management
and preservation of the transboundary water reserves.
The experts involved in the project have until March 2007 to draw up
the plan for the region’s four governments to share aquifer management.
The stated goal is to develop an adequate legal and institutional framework
and to promote public participation so that society contributes to preserving
the aquifer.
The project is to cost an estimated $27 million, $13 million of which
will come from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a multi-agency
consortium dominated by the World Bank.
The rest will be financed by the Organization of American States, the
four countries in question, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
and private entities from Germany and the Netherlands.
But social organizations involved in the WSF say large corporations
could make use of the project financed by governments and multilateral
agencies, with a view to administering water resources in the region
as a marketable product rather than a social good.
The groups allege that the United States went to war against Iraq to
gain control over the country’s oil, under the pretext that Saddam
Hussein possessed WMDs — which were never found — and that
Washington could use the excuse of the “war on terrorism”
in its bid to gain control over the water in the tri-border region.
They also point out that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
which has linked Canada, Mexico and the United States since 1994, has
already generated a market for water, and that the same thing could
occur in the rest of the world if a European Union initiative prospers
in the World Trade Organization.
“The aim of international actions like the tri-border region social
forum is to pressure governments to refuse to accept proposals that
would limit the capacity of states to regulate or provide clean water,
to the detriment of the poor,” said Serdiuk.
More than 70 organizations from Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, along
with groups from Chile, Colombia, Sweden and the United States, took
part in a preparatory meeting in late January in Puerto Iguazú
to agree on the agenda for the June social forum.
“We were overwhelmed by the number of people who attended, and
we’ll have to meet again in March to organize the logistics of
the June meeting. Puerto Iguazú has a limited capacity for providing
lodging for so many people,” said Serdiuk, who argued, however,
that the forum must be held “in the eye of the storm.”
Villagers, troops square off over mine
dispute
By Kafil Yamin
Kotabaru, Indonesia, Feb. 23 (IPS) -- The Indonesiangovernment
and Dayak villagers have called in fresh troops as tension intensifies
over disputed mining operations on Sebuku, an island of some 3,000 residents
in central Indonesia.
Government forces added 60 soldiers to their garrison on the island
earlier this week, bringing the government troop total to 190. The move
came after 100 Dayak warriors arrived, bringing their total to 300.
Government forces have been posted to ensure continued operations by
PT Bahana Cakrawala Sebuku (BCS), a majority Australian-owned mining
company. The Dayak say their warriors protect villagers from unwarranted,
random attacks by the soldiers.
Locals accuse BCS of paying too little for their land and of causing
environmental destruction in fragile ecosystems and on land the villagers
consider sacred. The company says it has honored the terms of compensation
plans agreed with the villagers.
Since early February, hundreds of Sebuku residents have blocked access
to mining areas. This is the third time they have staged such protests
since mining operations began in 1995. Since then, local farms, forests
and mountains have been converted into mines, often with the use of
explosives.
Residents have demanded that BCS suspend operations until it can guarantee
no further environmental destruction. Instead, they say, operations
and new exploration have increased and encroached on protected areas
and their private property.
Earlier this month, after troops clamped down against protesters, killing
one, villagers toughened their stance: They now want the company to
completely halt all operations until it fulfills not only their environmental
but also their financial demands.
“Our patience has run out. All understanding, tolerance, and peaceful
means are not useful. They give us no choice but firming our attitude.
We reject mining,’’ said Abidin, an elder of the Sebuku people.
“If they resort to use of force, we will fight back. That is the
only way now to defend this land of ours,’’ he added.
The villagers’ campaign is aided by an alliance of activist groups
including the Water Foundation, the Institute for Traditional Community
Empowerment (LPMA), the Indonesian Forum on the Environment (Walhi),
the Indonesia Green Sky Foundation (YCHI), and the anti-mining network
Jatam.
Alliance spokesman Zufri, who like many Indonesians uses only one name,
urged the police and the military not to interfere in the dispute. “Instead,
the local people deserve security and protection from the police and
the military. We remind them that they are there to serve the society,
not this selfish company,’’ Zufri said.
Berry Nahdian Furqon, chairman of Walhi’s South Kalimantan branch,
said that villagers’ hostility to the mining company had intensified
and that he hoped further bloodshed could be avoided.
“None of us want bloodshed. If the company and the security insist
in going ahead with this mining business without paying respect to people’s
rights, then the worst will certainly come. We really don’t want
it,’’ he said.
Berry, who has tracked the conflict since it began, said tension was
the highest he had seen.
Villagers, he said, had “come to the conclusion that this is not
about fair compensation or environmental impact anymore. It is about
the presence of the mining company. Their stand is firmed now, and they
don’t want the mining company on their land,’’ Berry
said.
Muhammad Safaruddin, a fisherman, said mining had hit even the livelihoods
of people who worked the sea, not the land. “They dump their waste
directly into the beach area through the river, causing fish along the
river and seashore to disappear. Now we have to go far out into the
sea to get only a handful of fish,’’ he said.
Abidin, a village elder, said villagers were prepared for further economic
setbacks but drew the line at allowing the mining company to continue.
“Gone are the days of good life on this land of ours. But we don’t
want the whole life gone,’’ he said. “This is the only
reason why we are fighting now, because we still have this life.’’
Villagers said that BCS paid only 5,000 rupiah (60 cents) for each square
meter of the land it acquired from locals, whereas the customary rate
was 50,000 rupiah (six dollars).
But Hasbiyadhi Munawir, a BCS lawyer, said the rate had been set in
agreement with local villagers.
Indonesian law does not spell out a specific rate for compensation but
dictates that the rate be based on negotiations between landowners and
buyers or concessionaires.
Munawir said that in addition to paying agreed-upon rates, the company
has built roads to open remote places on the island.
“Now villages are no longer isolated. We are building infrastructure
and helping develop the community,’’ he said.
BCS received top community development honors from Indonesian President
Megawati Sukarnoputri earlier this year.
Mining ministry data show that Sebuku has produced 10 tons of coal,
mainly for export, and that it has remaining coal deposits of around
14 tons. The island has also huge copper and iron deposits.
BCS’ original concession area for coal mining was 30,000 hectares
but in the past few years this has expanded, going into protected forest
areas and local settlements.
|
