Reply: Insights from the Three Gorges study

Abstract

Mr. Davies raises an interesting point about the military security of major dams such as the Three Gorges Dam. Certainly if such a major dam were damaged to the point where a significant fraction of the stored water were released, the damage would be catastrophic, with deaths in the tens of millions. author is not aware if the possibility of damage due to military or terrorist actions was considered in the design of the dam. There was no mention of it in the feasibility report by CYJV (Canadian Yangtze Joint Venture) and one would not expect Canadian engineers to take such possibilities into account. It is not done in Canada, where military or significant terrorist action is unthinkable. However, it is interesting to consider whether or not such possibilities should be taken into account in large projects overseas. Historically, dams have been considered as legitimate military targets in time of war, as evidenced by air attacks on German dams in the Second World War, glamorized in the popular film The Dam Busters. As explained by the well-known military writer, van Creveld (199 I), large-scale conventional war is almost certainly a thing of the past, the main reason being the threat of retaliation by nuclear weapons, if one side begins to win. However, this opens the way for terrorism, which is likely to become more and more widespread as the conventional military forces are seen to be more and more irrelevant. China has had a long and violent history, so one should not discount the possibility of internal strife and terrorism in the years to come. A large dam, such as the Three Gorges Dam, may have an economic life of about 70 years, but its actual life is indefinite, as provision is almost never made to dismantle such a dam. Should there be a period of insurrection and civil strife during its long life, the dam could well suffer serious damage, perhaps as a result of neglect during unsettled times rather than by direct terrorist attack. There is probably a much greater chance of such damage from human action or neglect than from natural hazards such as earthquakes or floods. Looked at from this point of view, perhaps it would be wiser not to go ahead with the project and provide such a hostage to fortune. Mr. Davies suggests that environmental standards should have been explicitly stated before the study of the project began and that this would have avoided later controversy about environmental effects of the project. This is true, but it begs the question How would one define such environmental standards? Defining environmental problems and standards is very difficult, since perceptions are so personal and subjective. All the stakeholders would have had to agree in advance on what were the problems and the standards that should be applied, a task that, clearly, would have been impossible. Mr. Davies seems a little uncomfortable with the categorization of the academics, who were involved in the Probe report as guerrillas. This was intended to highlight the distinction between the Probe report authors, who all worked individually, and the engineers on the CYJV report, who worked as a disciplined team.