By Anurag Mohanty Viswanath
The recent announcement by the Chinese government to build and complete a highway to the world’s highest peak, the 8,848-metre Mount Everest, has caused much concern among environmentalists the world over, as well as security concerns in neighbouring countries, in particular India. China’s stated objective to seek peaceful and harmonious development is being questioned by all quarters.
The $20-million ambitious highway project, slated to be completed within the next four months, proposes to upgrade the existing 108km-long rough track from the Tingri County, Shigatse Prefecture of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), to the northern base camp at an altitude of 5,200 metres.
Mount Everest, which Tibetans call Chomolongma (Goddess Mother of Snow) and Nepalese call Sagarmatha (Mother of the Universe), stands at the border of Nepal and Tibet. China has claims over the northern slope and Nepal over the southern.
China claims that the ”blacktop highway fenced by undulating guardrails” will help transport next year’s Olympic relay torch to the summit, as part of its 130-day, 137,000-kilometre odyssey across five continents, the longest torch relay to date.
Similarities with the pan-Himalayan railway project, which commenced operations in July 2006, are hard to miss. Both the highway and the rail line are 5,000 metres above mean sea level _ the engineering marvels cutting through TAR. Both are aimed to ”help and enhance development” in China’s Tibet.
The reality of the rail line has been mixed and the long-term consequences hard to judge. The 1,142km Qinghai-Tibet railways, which cuts across the fragile ecosystem of the Tibetan Plateau, home to the famed Tibetan antelopes, has been a good business proposition. On one hand, over 2.5 million tourists visited the once isolated TAR during 2006-2007 versus 1.8 million in 2005 prior to the start of the railway. The figure constitutes a 40% annual increase in the number of tourists. It is also expected to rise to 7 million by 2010. China National Tourism Administration’s recent tourism development plan estimates tourism income of 17.3 billion yuan (69.104 billion baht) by 2010 and 33 billion yuan (131.85 billion baht) during 2016-2020 from TAR.
The road to Everest may be a ”development” project to generate income and possible better livelihood for people living in the area on one hand. On the other, however, it can be read as a move to reinforce China’s hold over TAR and engulf the province with more ethnic Chinese (Han) migration.
Tibetans in exile allege that since 1995 the number of tourists has increased over 80 times and that most of the revenue is not reaching average Tibetans.
Everest is already on the brink of an ecological disaster with climbers, tourists and pilgrims approaching from both the Nepal and Tibetan sides. The proposed highway will dramatically increase and facilitate easy access to the world’s highest peak.
Moreover, the highway construction will involve fuel burning and tree-felling which will unsettle the fragile ecological balance. While there are no immediate plans to build hotels enroute, this has not been ruled out in the future.
For the present, Everest is already embattling thronging visitors due to commercial expeditions and the steady garbage pile-up. Since the first ascent in 1953, almost 10,000 people have attempted to scale the mountain _ an estimated 2,000 people have succeeded in reaching the summit. Japanese mountaineer Ken Noguchi, who has spearheaded a clean-up campaign, has helped remove nearly 8 tonnes of trash over four trips during 2000-2004. One irony is that while environmentalists are crying that China is committing environmental mistakes with the road to the top of the world, the country has several initiatives on paper seeking harmony between humans and nature. Its stated aim is to realise an environmentally adjusted GDP (Green GDP). It also promises the world the first ”Green Olympics.” Since the 1980s, when it adopted the concept of harmonious development, China has been beefing up its environmental protection framework with a complex network of regulations such as the Environmental Protection Law in 1989 and the establishment of the State Environment Protection Agency in 1998. It also embraced Agenda 21 _ a blueprint of action for the 21st century; a Programme of Action for Sustainable Development in 2004 and issued a White Paper on Environment, voicing its commitment to synchronise development and growth. It is also one of the first in the developing world to release a National Programme on Climate Change. Later this year, China is expected to pass the law on Circular Economy with a focus on the ”3-R principle” (reduce, re-use and recycle). Despite the efforts, the question remains if the Asian giant is falling short overall? The recently completed US$25 billion (865 billion baht) Three Gorges Hydro-electric project, (SanXia project) whose reservoir engulfed 100 towns, 14,500 hectares of land, and forced 1.2 million people to move, has faced a barrage of criticisms. China counters by stating that the Three Gorges project has benefited 15 million people and 1.5 million hectares by reducing the flooding which typically killed hundreds every year in the Yangtze Delta. According to a recent assessment by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in June 2007, China has overtaken the United States as the largest producer of carbon dioxide. China is the world’s leading consumer of coal, which accounts for almost 70% of its energy supply. According to a report by China’s Energy Research Institute, an affiliation of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), energy consumption per unit of GDP actually rose by 0.8% during the first half of 2006 despite the lofty goal of reducing it by 20% between 2006 and 2010. A 1999 survey by the Washington-based World Resources Institute holds some truth: 9 out of 10 most polluted cities of the world are in China.
There is no doubt, though, that China is increasingly open to criticism as well as transparent about its environmental record. Environmental concern is a top priority with the present Hu-Wen leadership and environmental NGOs (ENGOs) are proliferating. Perhaps the highway should be a wake-up call for the leadership, which seems to be taking the proverbial step forward and two backwards.
China has repeatedly suggested to all countries in South and Southeast Asia that there is no need to fear its resurgence, and that it seeks peaceful co-existence. While the highway has no military component, it enhances surveillance capabilities over neighbouring India, which has raised security concerns.
The rail line, China’s current plan to add an additional 8,000km of roads in TAR, coupled with other new development, has been viewed unfavourably.
In truth, the highway sends out a wrong message _ both in its commitment towards going green as well as its promise of a peaceful rise. China needs to help allay such fears, and will stand to gain respect in the comity of nations by matching its numerous enactments with practice and steadily bridging the gap between reality and rhetoric.
Dr Anurag Mohanty Viswanath is a China specialist.
