{"id":20001009,"date":"2010-12-30T15:40:31","date_gmt":"2010-12-30T15:40:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/184.172.177.95\/~chinad\/?p=1009"},"modified":"2010-12-30T15:40:31","modified_gmt":"2010-12-30T15:40:31","slug":"on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Mekong, a better way (1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian\u00a0Qin Hui\u00a0criticises Beijing\u2019s response.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n\"\"The Cambodian prime minister is in China\u2019s good books. In a recent \u2013 and friendly \u2013\u00a0speech<\/a>, Hun Sen said that\u00a0this year\u2019s\u00a0record\u00a0low water levels<\/a>\u00a0on the\u00a0Mekong\u00a0River\u00a0have been\u00a0caused by irregular rainfall triggered by climate change and that linking it to the construction of Chinese hydropower dams is misguided.<\/p>\n

On November 18, when reporters asked China\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hong Lei what he thought of Hun Sen’s remarks, he said: “China and downstream countries are good neighbours and our development in\u00a0water resources exploitation\u00a0on the Lancang-Mekong\u00a0River is fully consistent with the interests of those countries along the\u00a0Mekong\u00a0River. As a responsible upstream country, China has always attached great importance to environmental and ecological protection during the development of water resources on Lancang River and fully considered the concerns of downstream countries.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two days later,\u00a0however,\u00a0the\u00a0Washington Post\u00a0published an article<\/a>\u00a0saying experts\u00a0are\u00a0predictingChina’s dam construction on the\u00a0Mekong\u00a0will\u00a0devastate the lives of millions of people\u00a0who rely on eating fish from Cambodia’s inland lake,\u00a0Tonl\u00e9 Sap<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 something Cambodia has not criticised Beijing over. The\u00a0article\u00a0says:\u00a0“The perennial question about China’s rise is:\u00a0when will Beijing be able to translate its cash into power. In Cambodia, it already has.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whatever the Cambodian president says,\u00a0international concerns about China\u2019s dam-building activities on\u00a0transboundary\u00a0rivers have\u00a0clearly\u00a0not\u00a0gone away. And\u00a0Chinese scholars\u00a0continue to\u00a0debate\u00a0the issue. Here, in an\u00a0in-depth, three-part essay, professor Qin Hui of Tsinghua University offers his views.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s hydropower development on the\u00a0Lancang River<\/a>\u00a0(known as the Mekong once it leaves China\u2019s borders) has\u00a0prompted criticism<\/a>\u00a0from countries downstream in south-east Asia. In particular, extremely low water levels seen on stretches of the river during this year\u2019s\u00a0drought<\/a>\u00a0in south-west China, triggered intense media scrutiny in countries including Thailand and Laos.<\/p>\n

Speaking at a press conference in March, an official from China\u2019s Thai embassy\u00a0responded to the outcry by\u00a0repeating\u00a0the usual refrain that \u201coutflow from China into the Mekong only accounts for 13.5% of the volume at the river mouth\u201d. He pointed out that the surface area of the reservoirs behind China\u2019s three dams on the river \u2013 at\u00a0Manwan,\u00a0Dachaoshan<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Jinghong<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 is very small and results in negligible evaporation, while hydropower generation does not actually consume any water and therefore has virtually no impact on the river. And so on.<\/p>\n

On a recent research trip to south-east Asia, I heard\u00a0frequent\u00a0complaints that China\u2019s hydropower development is causing all sorts of environmental problems downstream. There was no \u2013 or at least not enough \u2013 evidence for many of these claims, a point I constantly put forward. But I still find China\u2019s official response inappropriate, not to mention ineffective\u00a0atclarifying the true situation. In fact, this stance could easily be used against China, as it gives the impression the country is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of its critics \u2013 particularly\u00a0given that\u00a0the statement made in Thailand was written not by the embassy, but by China\u2019s hydropower authorities.<\/p>\n

First, let\u2019s deal with the claim that outflow from China accounts for only 13.5% (some say 14% or 16%) of the Mekong\u2019s flow when it reaches the sea. This has been a catchphrase for Chinese officials in the past few years and has some validity in relation to problems occurring far downstream, particularly near the river\u2019s mouth. Vietnam\u2019s\u00a0complaints<\/a>\u00a0about seawater intrusion in the Mekong Delta are one example. The bulk of the water in that part of the river does not come from China and so we can\u00a0legitimatelyargue there is no reason to point the finger in that direction.<\/p>\n

However, for most of the length of the river outside of China\u2019s borders, outflow from China accounts for a much larger proportion of overall volume. For example, at\u00a0Luang Prabgang<\/a>\u00a0in Laos, on average two thirds of the river water has come from China. So we cannot claim that the problems in these places have nothing to do with China. The\u00a0floods\u00a0around the Laos capital of Vientiane in 2008 and the historically low water levels seen in certain areas this year all occurred on stretches of the river where most of the water comes from China. In these cases, there is no sense in pointing out that China accounts for only a small proportion of the flow at the river mouth.<\/p>\n

Drought was of course a\u00a0contributing\u00a0factor\u00a0to this year\u2019s\u00a0low water levels, but with so many huge dams on the river\u00a0China needs\u00a0to back up\u00a0its\u00a0claims that the changes in flow were entirely natural. Talk of small surface areas, low evaporation and hydropower not consuming water are transparent attempts to fob off China\u2019s critics. The impact of a reservoir downstream has nothing to do with \u201cwater consumption\u201d or \u201cevaporation\u201d, but the impoundment and release of water. Opening or closing floodgates has a huge impact on downstream flow. Otherwise, how could we talk about reservoirs preventing floods\u00a0and\u00a0relieving drought?<\/p>\n

Of course, the impact is limited to the capacity of the reservoir. And so we talk of\u00a0dams\u00a0being able to regulate downstream flow on a daily, monthly, seasonal, annual or multi-year basis. But China has a huge capacity to do this. Yes, only some 14% of the water at the Mekong\u2019s mouth comes from China. But 70% of reservoir capacity in the Mekong Basin is within China \u2013 and this will rise to 90% when the\u00a0Nuozhadu dam<\/a>\u00a0(a nine generator scheme under construction in Yunnan)\u00a0comes into operation. Moreover, all of China\u2019s Mekong reservoir capacity is on the river proper, while other nations have built dams only on tributaries.<\/p>\n

Our officials describe the Manwan, Dachaoshan and Jinghong reservoirs as being \u201cof small surface area\u201d. But a reservoir\u2019s effects depend on its volume. Why talk about the area? These three dams are all over 100 metres high, with\u00a0reservoir\u00a0capacities of 920 million, 940 million and 1.4 billion cubic metres respectively: in total, the equivalent of three\u00a0Dianchi<\/a>\u00a0lakes.<\/p>\n

The Manwan and Dachaoshan dams are said to be able to regulate river flow on a seasonal basis, while Jinghong can do so on a monthly (some sources say seasonal) basis. So at the very least, they can influence seasonal river flow downstream. We can argue about whether that is a positive or negative influence, but to disregard common sense and claim these reservoirs have no impact \u2013 and then to muddy the issue with talk of \u201cevaporation\u201d \u2013 simply makes China look bad.<\/p>\n

Particularly bizarre is the fact that China\u2019s officials for some reason talk of the \u201cthree reservoirs of the Lancang\u201d, when domestic media have reported on a much bigger fourth project: the\u00a0Xiaowan dam<\/a>. Electricity generation here started in September 2009 and, at a height of 300 metres, it is the world\u2019s highest\u00a0arch dam<\/a>. Its power-generating capacity is claimed to be second only to the\u00a0Three Gorges dam, while reservoir capacity is variously said to be 15.3 or 14.6 billion cubic metres \u2013 almost five times the total capacity of the other three reservoirs.<\/p>\n

If all the water flowing into the reservoir was impounded \u2013 cutting off the river completely \u2013 it would still take four and a half months to fill it from empty. And then if a dry period saw river levels fall to half of normal, the release of water could restore normal flow for a full 10 months. You could call that quite a substantial \u201cimpact\u201d.<\/p>\n

According to the hydropower industry,\u00a0Xiaowan\u00a0has the ability to regulate river flow on a multi-year basis and is a \u201ctap\u201d that can ensure hydropower stations downstream \u2013 including at Jinghong near the border \u2013 enjoy a steady flow of water through both the wet and dry seasons. And yet China\u2019s officials speak of \u201cvirtually no impact\u201d. Nations downstream suspect the Xiaowan reservoir is still being filled, since it is so big and the dam only started working in September, 2009.\u00a0Even a severe drought like the one this year could be exacerbated by a\u00a0huge reservoir being filled upstream. To determine whether or not this did happen, we must look at how the reservoir was actually operated. Simply claiming there is no impact at all will fool no one.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, we know that work started on an even bigger reservoir \u2013 at Nuozhadu \u2013 in 2006 and that the river has already been dammed. With a capacity of 23.7 billion cubic metres, this scheme will also be able to regulate river flow over a number of years. Not only is it bigger than Xiaowan, but it is also nearer the border. Once that reservoir starts filling, will China again claim it has a small surface area, doesn\u2019t evaporate much, consumes no water\u00a0\u2013 and has \u201cno impact\u201d?<\/p>\n

The inevitable conflict<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is impossible for a large reservoir to have \u201cno impact\u201d downstream. The right question is: what kind of impact? It can be positive or negative, depending on how the reservoir is built and \u2013 more importantly \u2013 how it is operated. There are myriad ways to run a reservoir but, simply speaking, there are two basic methods:<\/p>\n

One is to manage the reservoir with the aim of preventing floods and relieving drought \u2013 in other words, positive regulation. Usually this means emptying out the reservoir until flood season and then storing as much water as possible to lower flood peaks downstream, bringing the reservoir to capacity just as the season ends.<\/p>\n

During the dry season, natural flow is passed through and supplemented with water from the reservoir to increase downstream flow, bringing water levels behind the dam to their lowest point by the time the next flood season starts. This relieves both floods and dry periods, evening flow out between the two seasons, and is normally welcomed downstream. But it conflicts with the demands of electricity generation and the need to prevent silt accumulation in the reservoir.<\/p>\n

The second method of reservoir operation is almost the direct opposite: store clean water and let silt-laden water flow out. Flood waters carry higher levels of silt than regular flow and this settles on the reservoir floor when the water is impounded. To prevent a build up of sediment and maintain reservoir capacity, it makes more sense to allow flood waters to pass through the dam and instead to store water during the dry season, when there is less silt. And as electricity generation depends on\u00a0the\u00a0flow and the head \u2013 the height of the water in the reservoir relative to the height the water level on the other side of the dam \u2013 storing what little water there is during dry season makes sense as it helps keep the reservoir high.<\/p>\n

However, this is exactly what downstream neighbours want to avoid and, if carried through fully, exacerbates\u00a0both flooding and\u00a0drought. Both the\u00a0Three Gorges Dam<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Samnmenxia dams<\/a>\u00a0use this method to varying degrees and have presented it as a great innovation. In reality, it is an obvious way of boosting power generation and maintaining capacity but is completely at odds with the original aim of preventing floods and relieving drought. Severe sedimentation \u2013 particularly at Sanmenxia \u2013 made it necessary. Although experts did their best to come up with sophisticated ways of regulating flow by way of a compromise, the reservoirs\u2019 ability to function as intended has been greatly reduced and, at Sanmenxia, is as good as abandoned.<\/p>\n

So the interests of the dam operators (maintaining capacity and generating power) and those of downstream residents (preventing floods and relieving droughts) often conflict. Given this, it is understandable if those operating the dams on the Lancang and populations downstream express differing needs.<\/p>\n

A Thai official was quoted in the Chinese press as saying \u2013 in response to criticism of China in his country \u2013 that, since\u00a0Chinese dams do not impound water during the dry season, the unusually low river levels were insteadcaused by a drought brought about by global warming.<\/p>\n

This official presumably had not heard the theory that Chinese dams do exactly\u00a0this. Whether or not these reservoirs are storing water in the dry season needs to be clarified by China\u2019s own authorities.\u00a0Some say China has actually been doing the opposite \u2013 releasing water to relieve drought. And, equally, if that is the case Beijing should make it known.\u00a0But instead, the country\u2019s officials talk solely of \u201cno impact\u201d\u00a0and \u201cevaporation\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

This article was first published\u00a0in the\u00a0Economic Observer<\/a>.\u00a0It is reproduced here with permission.<\/p>\n

Qin Hui is professor of history at Tsinghua University.<\/p>\n

NEXT:\u00a0Attracting unnecessary suspicion
\n<\/a>
\nPART THREE: Taking lessons home<\/a><\/p>\n

Homepage image by\u00a0immu<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing\u2019s response.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20000196,"featured_media":20003158,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[757,50039903],"tags":[50040314,554,587,50040707,607],"hashtags":[],"country":[20029278,20000110,20028095,20029326],"class_list":["post-20001009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-energy","category-water","tag-dams","tag-hydropower","tag-rivers","tag-the-third-pole","tag-water-scarcity","country-cambodia","country-china","country-laos","country-thailand"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nOn the Mekong, a better way (1) | Dialogue Earth<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing\u2019s response.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"On the Mekong, a better way (1)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing\u2019s response.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dialogue Earth\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-30T15:40:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Dialogue-Earth-logo_Thumbnail.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"675\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Qin Hui\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Qin Hui\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a3a5835c7ca15cfaf6e1d63515110368\"},\"headline\":\"On the Mekong, a better way (1)\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-30T15:40:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/\"},\"wordCount\":2127,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"\",\"keywords\":[\"Dams\",\"Hydropower\",\"Rivers\",\"The Third Pole\",\"Water scarcity\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Energy\",\"Water\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/\",\"name\":\"On the Mekong, a better way (1) | Dialogue Earth\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-30T15:40:31+00:00\",\"description\":\"Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing\u2019s response.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"\",\"contentUrl\":\"\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"On the Mekong, a better way (1)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Dialogue Earth\",\"description\":\"Global climate and environment news\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"\u5bf9\u8bdd\u5730\u7403\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Dialogue-Earth-Symbol-Logo_Black-Text.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Dialogue-Earth-Symbol-Logo_Black-Text.png\",\"width\":256,\"height\":256,\"caption\":\"\u5bf9\u8bdd\u5730\u7403\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/DialogueEarth_\",\"\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/DialogueEarth.English\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/dialogue.earth\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/dialogueearth\/\"],\"publishingPrinciples\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/about\/\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a3a5835c7ca15cfaf6e1d63515110368\",\"name\":\"Qin Hui\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/author\/qin-hui\/\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/author\/qin-hui\/\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"On the Mekong, a better way (1) | Dialogue Earth","description":"Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing\u2019s response.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"On the Mekong, a better way (1)","og_description":"Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing\u2019s response.","og_url":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/","og_site_name":"Dialogue Earth","article_published_time":"2010-12-30T15:40:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":675,"url":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Dialogue-Earth-logo_Thumbnail.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Qin Hui","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/"},"author":{"name":"Qin Hui","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a3a5835c7ca15cfaf6e1d63515110368"},"headline":"On the Mekong, a better way (1)","datePublished":"2010-12-30T15:40:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/"},"wordCount":2127,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"","keywords":["Dams","Hydropower","Rivers","The Third Pole","Water scarcity"],"articleSection":["Energy","Water"],"inLanguage":"en","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/","url":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/","name":"On the Mekong, a better way (1) | Dialogue Earth","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"","datePublished":"2010-12-30T15:40:31+00:00","description":"Dam-building in south-west China has provoked fury downstream. In the first instalment of a three-part article, historian Qin Hui criticises Beijing\u2019s response.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#primaryimage","url":"","contentUrl":""},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/on-the-mekong-a-better-way-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"On the Mekong, a better way (1)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/","name":"Dialogue Earth","description":"Global climate and environment news","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#organization","name":"\u5bf9\u8bdd\u5730\u7403","url":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Dialogue-Earth-Symbol-Logo_Black-Text.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Dialogue-Earth-Symbol-Logo_Black-Text.png","width":256,"height":256,"caption":"\u5bf9\u8bdd\u5730\u7403"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/DialogueEarth_","","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/DialogueEarth.English","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/dialogue.earth\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/dialogueearth\/"],"publishingPrinciples":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/about\/"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a3a5835c7ca15cfaf6e1d63515110368","name":"Qin Hui","url":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/author\/qin-hui\/","sameAs":["https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/author\/qin-hui\/"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20001009","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20000196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20001009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20001009\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20001009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20001009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20001009"},{"taxonomy":"hashtags","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hashtags?post=20001009"},{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=20001009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}