Re: Social movement against Indian dam (endorse, please!)
To whom..., These "answers" about dam projects are totally inadequate. Natural-gas-fired power plants still produce greenhouse gases and natural gas is not available in all areas or as cheap as coal. It is also a non-renewable resource. Riverine environments are not "destroyed" by even thoughtlessly constructed dams. They are altered and migrating species suffer badly. That is a reason to change damming practices, not to abandon the practice. The "respondent" claims at once that dams produce disease (an idiotic simplification) *and* that they reduce wetlands where the very insects to which he backhandedly refers breed. Clearly it can't be had both ways. To what extent dams eliminate floodplain habitat obviously depends on the land at the reservoir's edge which, of course, becomes a new flood plain. Dams are often built in steep valleys where narrow floodplains are drowned, but they need not be. In fact dams can create vast floodplains and vast wetlands if they are built so that flatter land is flooded. Try and sell that to local politicians: flooding *more* land for the sake of a better natural environment. Clearly the claim of drowning fertile land is stupid since the point of the endeavor is to control erosion and provide irrigation. It can be said that dams slow river flows and create stiller water downstream. However, one of the major problems facing developing areas is development along the historic floodplain. Even if a significant verge is left, this activity increases flows during flood periods. Damming, therefore can be an intelligent way to manage inevitably pressured floodplain verges. As for fishing, the reservoir produced is often as or more productive than the river that preceded it, especially if large areas of flatter land are flooded. I don't think that trees are much more important ecologically than plankton or weeds, so that is pretty much a wash (although, again, it depends on the verge that is left - if flooding cuts off forest areas from each other or there is no forest left along the shore of the reservoir that can be deleterious, but that depends on good planning). Lakes also provide tourist interest and recreation. As for agriculture, I am no fan of traditional farming. I believe it is wasteful, back-breaking labor better left to machines working large spreads. Small farmers are a doomed anachronism. The economics of staple farming on even thousand acre spreads are difficult. That improved irrigation resources might encourage irresponsible farming practices by making the land *more* arable has nothing at all to do with the dam and everything to do with the regulation of agricultural practices. Finally, conservation is nice and desirable, but it does not provide fuel for development. It is a way to make an existing system more efficient and delay or prevent the need for new infrastructure projects. The existing systems in the third world are woefully inadequate and new infrastructure projects should only be delayed for so long as it takes to make them smarter, more effective, and a better engine to provide a better living for the proletariat. That means competing with the forces of capitalism for control of infrastructure, not abandoning infrastructure altogether. peace
Re: Social movement against Indian dam (endorse, please!)
P.S.- What is the deal with "indigenous" cultures in India? Is there a culture in India *less* than a couple thousand years old? peace
Re: Social movement against Indian dam (endorse, please!)
Questions and Answers on the International Movement Against Large Dams from (http://www.irn.org/basics/qanda.html) Q. What is a large dam? How many large dams are there? A: A large dam is defined by the dam industry as one higher than 15 metres (taller than a four-story building). There are more than 40,000 large dams worldwide. There are more than 300 major dams - giants which meet one of a number of criteria on height (at least 150 metres), dam volume and reservoir volume. Q: Which countries have the most large dams? A: China has around 19,000 large dams. The US is the second most dammed country with some 5,500 large dams, followed by the ex-USSR, Japan and India. Brazil is in tenth place with around 516 large dams. The US has the most major dams - 50 - followed by the ex-USSR, Canada and then Brazil with 16. Q: How many are being built today? A: The rate at which large dams are completed has declined from around 1,000 a year from the 1950s to the mid-1970s to around 260 a year during the early 1990s. More than 1,000 large dams were under construction at the beginning of 1994. The countries with the most large dams under construction are currently China, Turkey, South Korea and Japan. Q: Why is there so much opposition to large dams? A: Large dams have provoked opposition for numerous social, environmental, economic and safety reasons. The main reason for opposition worldwide are the huge numbers of people evicted from their lands and homes to make way for reservoirs. The livelihoods of many millions of people also suffer because of the downstream effects of dams: the loss of fisheries, contaminated water, decreased amounts of water, and a reduction in the fertility of farmlands and forests due to the loss of natural fertilizers and irrigation in seasonal floods. Dams also spread waterborne diseases such as malaria, leishmaniasis and schistosomiasis. Opponents also believe that the benefits of dams have frequently been deliberately exaggerated and that the services they provide could be provided by other more efficient and sustainable means. Q: How many people have been displaced by dams? A: Between 30 and 60 million, the majority of them in China and India. At present perhaps 2 million people are displaced every year by large dams. Q: Aren't people displaced by dams fairly compensated? A: In nearly every case which has been studied, the majority of people evicted - usually poor farmers and indigenous people - are further impoverished economically and suffer cultural decline, high rates of sickness and death, and great psychological stress. In some cases people receive no or negligible compensation for their losses. Where compensation is given, cash payments are very rarely enough to compensate for the loss of land, homes, jobs and businesses and replacement land for farmers is usually of poorer quality and smaller than the original holdings. Q: How much land has been flooded under reservoirs? A: More than 400,000 square kilometres - the area of California - have been inundated by reservoirs worldwide. This represents 0.3 percent of the world's land area, but the significance of the loss is greater than the figure suggests as river valley land provides the world's most fertile farmland, and most diverse forests and wetland ecosystems. Q: Have many people been killed in dam collapses? A: More than 13,500 people have been swept to their deaths by the roughly 200 dams outside China which have collapsed or been overtopped during the 20th century. Two large dams which burst when a massive typhoon hit the Chinese province of Henan in August 1975 left an estimated 80,000 to 230,000 dead. This disaster was kept secret by the Chinese government and was only revealed to the outside world in 1995. People have also died in earthquakes caused by the great weight of water in large reservoirs. A magnitude 6.3 earthquake caused by Koyna Dam in India in 1967 killed around 180 people. Q: What are the benefits provided by large dams? A: The majority of large dams are built for irrigation; almost all major dams are built for hydropower. Nearly one-fifth of the world's electricity is generated by dams. Dams also provide flood control, supply water to cities, and can assist river navigation. Many dams are multipurpose, providing two or more of the above benefits. Q: Surely we need dams to produce cheap and clean electricity? A: Hydroelectricity is cheap to produce - once the dams are built. The problem is the huge costs of building dams and the long time it takes to build them. The Itaipu Dam, for example, cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. Actual costs for hydropower dams are also almost always far higher than estimated costs - on average around 30 percent higher. Dam designers are often very optimistic about how much power their dams will produce and often fail to account for the impacts of droughts, meaning that dams often produce less power than promised. Itaipu generates around 20
Re: Social movement against Indian dam (endorse, please!)
C. Bond, In lieu of the proposed dam, what would you propose to supply power/water/flood control? I am no fan of big dams because of the way they effect the riverine environment, at the same time my understanding is that smaller dam/flood-control-reservoir projects actually drown more net acreage and cost more. I'm in favor of them, but where is the money to come from and more importantly where is the political consensus to come from? I may not agree with LM on most things, but they have a point: holding back development in that region is not an option. Therefore hydro-power seems like a sensible thing to undertake espcially in India. First, India has great need for better water management. Second India has a lot of coal and they will use it to generate power if cleaner sources are not made available. peace
Social movement against Indian dam (endorse, please!)
Comrades, You regularly get mail asking for a quick read and endorsement. Can I appeal to you to take this one seriously, as many thousands of people are today putting their lives on the line for social and environmental justice in India, and your signature below -- as an individual even -- can amplify their efforts in the international fora where these struggles often get decided. In the event you haven't seen anything about the Save the Narmada movement, this will inspire you. Since on Pen-L there has been interesting debate about the merits of the LM-linked movie Against Nature, and since that film described opposition to the Narmada dams as essentially coordinated from the offices of Northern environmental groups, the documentation here of extraordinary mass mobilisations -- particularly led by women farmers -- helps to set a crucial record straight. We had a seminar earlier this year in Johannesburg about this movement, and it helped to stir up terrific energy and opposition to massive, unnecessary World Bank funded dams in Southern Africa. The Save the Narmada movement is one of the world's finest, at present. Please do give this a look-over and send a note of support to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks much! Patrick Bond --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:14:01 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick McCully) Subject: Reminder: Maheshwar Declaration Endorsements To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] NB The deadline for endorsements is this Thursday. List of endorsements received by Monday May 3 is appended at end of message. A translation of the Declaration in German and summary in Spanish are available. PLEASE ENDORSE THIS DECLARATION! International Rivers Network and Narmada Bachao Andolan/Save the Narmada Movement have prepared the following declaration on Maheshwar Dam. The declaration will be addressed to all Indian and foreign public and private sector bodies supporting the project. We are seeking endorsements to the declaration from groups in India and around the world. If you are able to add your endorsement please send us your name and institutional affiliation by Thursday, May 7. Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The NBA is currently working on raising awareness and support within India for the Maheshwar struggle and are planning their next mass action at the dam site. THANK YOU! - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STRUGGLE FOR THE PROMISED SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE MAHESHWAR DAM, MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA NOTING THAT: 1. Maheshwar Dam would submerge 5000 hectares of land, displacing 2200 families and harming the livelihoods of thousands more. Families whose land has been seized have received inadequate - and illegal - levels of compensation. No resettlement plan exists. Local people have opposed the seizure of their land and have requested the Narmada Bachao Andolan/Save the Narmada Movement (NBA) to join them in their struggle to defend their rights. 2. Following a year-long struggle, the Government of Madhya Pradesh (GoMP) on January 30, 1998, issued a written order announcing that it would suspend construction on the dam pending a comprehensive review of its costs, benefits and alternatives. This announcement met the demands of the NBA who called off a dam-site occupation by thousands of local people and a hunger strike. A Task Force previously established to review the Narmada Valley Development Project, and including representatives from the GoMP, NBA and academia, has been directed to carry out this review. 3. At a special meeting of the Task Force on March, 4, 1998, the project developer, S.Kumars, urged to be allowed to restart construction at Maheshwar for "safety purposes". The NBA opposed this request believing that it is a ruse to allow work to continue and thus reassure investors that the project will not be significantly delayed. However on March, 11, 1998, GoMP issued a notification allowing "any work for the purposes of safety and resettlement". 4. In early April, S.Kumars restarted work, including blasting, at Maheshwar under protection of a force of around 1500 police and prohibitory orders banning protestors from the dam site. On April 22, several thousand people recaptured the dam site. Police arrested hundreds of villagers and prevented drinking water tankers from reaching the protestors despite the 42 degree centigrade heat and lack of shelter, forcing people to drink oil-contaminated river water. In the evening police arrested those remaining at the site, bringing the total of the day's arrests to around 1200. 5. The following day, hundreds more people dodged police barricades and once again took over the site. The police, without warning or provocation, reacted with brutality, repeatedly beating the peaceful protestors with batons
