Globally 1.1 billion people lack access to freshwater. Water transfers — massive engineering projects that divert water from rivers with perceived surpluses to those with shortages — have been promoted as a solution. But water transfers aren't always the answer, says a report from WWF Germany after seven cases studies in the world including south-north transfers in China.
The report titled "Pipe Dreams" first published in 2007 and second in 2009 says that water transfer schemes attempt to make up for water shortages by constructing elaborate systems of canals, pipes, and dredging over long distances to convey water from one river basin (the donor basin) to another (the recipient basin). Under certain circumstances, large-scale water transfers fulfill an important role in providing water to those in need, but overall their benefits are doubtful.
Environmental damage
Water transfers seriously impact the environment of the donor basin. They create or escalate threats to critically endangered species, Ramsar-listed wetlands, and protected areas. Dams constructed on the river from which water is taken can devastate its ecology, disrupting environmental flows and blocking migrating fish.
Economic and human costs
Water transfer schemes compromise rivers' ability to provide food and water. Even when "only" 10 to 15% of water is taken from one basin, it can cause droughts in both basins in times of little rainfall.
Economic benefits generated in the recipient basin often come at the cost of those living in the donor basin.
Some projects have displaced entire communities. People whose livelihoods depend on the donor basin have not always been consulted on how they will be affected. In the past, this has created social conflicts between the donor and recipient basins and governments.
And while a water transfer scheme is designed for their benefit, residents of the recipient basin also face negative consequences.
Cost overruns are common and planned benefits may fall short. Without massive government subsidies, farmers in areas receiving water could pay as much as US$1 per cubic metre, making their produce more expensive locally than that available on world markets and threatening their livelihoods.
Down the drain: wasted water and water transfers
In many cases, water use in the recipient basin is not evaluated prior to the construction of a water transfer project. This contributes to the continuation of unsustainable water use practices and, over time, increases the thirst for more water.
For instance, agriculture — which accounts for 70% of the world's accessible water use — wastes 60%, or 1,500 trillion litres, of the water it uses each year.
But improvements are possible. In the case of cotton, one of agriculture's most water-intensive crops, water savings of up to 70% are achievable by switching to sprinkler or drip irrigation systems. If a water transfer scheme is built, there is less incentive to move to such practices.
Proposed alternatives for China
Proposed alternatives for South-North transfers in China, especially the middle and western porjects are relocating the water footprints of the North to appropriate regions in the South, increasing system efficiency such as by enhancing distribution efficiency by reducing transmission losses, improving water use efficiency particularly in agriculture, by reducing subsidies for agricultural water use, increasing water reuse, including better pollution prevention and control and large scale investment in water treatment facilities, and recharging groundwater reserves and help in conserving water that can be later used in drought conditions.
The study also pointed out that China has realized the importance of managing the demand and put up forward specific targets in saving water in agriculture.
According experts in China, the central government has made a plan to study fish migration and ecosystem impact in the near future.
By Xuefei Chen, People's Daily Online, Stockholm.
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article