Home
Reports
Qinghai-Tibet Railway Extensions Necessary (Xinhua)
Special Report: NPC, CPPCC Annual Sessions 2008
BEIJING, March 4 (Xinhua) -- Construction of Qinghai-Tibet railway
extensions is "quite necessary", said Qiangba Puncog, chairman of
Tibet Autonomous Region, on Tuesday.
"We will fully tap the potential of railway in the region, and we hope
the extensions linking Lhasa to Xigaze and Nyingchi would bring more
benefits to the Tibetan people," said Qiangba Puncog, who is a deputy
to the 11th National People's Congress, China's top legislature.
The 1,956-km Qinghai-Tibet Railway has had profound influence on the
Tibetan people since it was put into operation in July 2006,ending the
history of the region without railway, noted the chairman.
Tourism industry in the landlocked plateau was greatly boosted, as
Tibet chalked up 4 million plus of tourists in 2007, about 1 million
more than estimated. Tourism revenue surged 73.3 percent year-on-year
to 4.8 billion yuan (about 676 million U.S. dollars) last year,
accounting for about 14 percent of the gross domestic product in the
southwestern region.
The railway helped shorten regional difference in cost, drawing more
investment to Tibet. Last year Tibet took in non-governmental
investment of 8.45 billion yuan (about 1.2 billion U.S. dollars), 29
percent up from 2006.
"The railway also offered more job opportunities for local workforces,
and people saw hope of faster development of Tibet," said Qiangba
Puncog.
However, the vast region taking up one eighth of China's territory in
size is still in need of capital for development, he said.
The legislator disclosed that preparations for the Lhasa-Xigaze
railway had completed while the construction plan was undergoing
approval from the central government.
The 254-km extension line, the first feeder for the Qinghai-Tibet
Railway, is planned to start this year and expected to be completed in
2010, according to an earlier report.
http://www.tibetinfonet.net/content/display_image/270208-1
The peculiar, finger-length fungus has a pencil-wide fruiting body
that grows out of the head of ghost moth larvae. A healthy larva hibernates deep
in the ground, while an infected larva buries itself close to the surface where
the fungus can grow above ground to spread its spores. Collectors dig out the
larva and the fungus. The condition of the larva is regarded as more important
than the fruiting body. Tibetans commonly refer to this larva-fungus as ‘bu’,
meaning worm. The full name yartsa gunbu means ‘summer grass-winter worm’. Just
finding one big or two to three smaller ‘bu’ secures as much income as one day
of backbreaking roadwork. However, most collectors find many more a day,
anything between 5 and 25 is common, but collectors also can find none or
hundreds of specimens. Collectors can sell an individual specimen for 3 to 50
Yuan (UK0.22-3.60; US$0.45-$7; EUR0.3-5), average specimens trade for 8 to 12
Yuan (UK0.56-0.82; US$1.1-1.6; EUR0.8-1.2). The value chain links collectors on
the slopes of Tibet’s alpine grasslands with markets in county towns,
prefectural centres, i.e. Nagchu (Naqu), Chamdo (Qamdo), Jyekundo (Yushu),
Dartsedo (Kangding), and regional and provincial capitals (Lhasa, Xining,
Chengdu) to mostly Chinese consumers in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and
beyond.
In the West, M.J. Berkeley described yartsa gunbu in 1843 as Sphaeria sinensis.
The ‘sinensis’ epithet was applied since Berkeley had obtained his specimen from
a market in coastal China. Apparently he was not aware of its origins on the
Tibetan Plateau. The gathering, trade and use of yartsa gunbu has a long history
in Tibet. The first known references to Cordyceps sinensis under the name yartsa
gunbu can be found in the ‘Oral Instructions on a Myriad of Medicines’ by
Zurkhar Nyamnyi Dorje (1439-1475). Traditional Tibetan Medicine (TTM) regards
yartsa gunbu as a "medicinal essence" (rtsi sman), like several other tonics. It
is prescribed for strengthening the patient’s health, including the immune
system, and for boosting virility, and for treating ailments of the kidneys,
lungs and heart. Traditionally it is also applied for treating Hepatitis B. A
key characteristic of yartsa gunbu in TTM is that it is regarded as very
effective, without causing side effects.
In recent years yartsa gunbu has become nearly as central to Tibetan rural life
as the yak, the ‘cornerstone species’ of traditional Tibetan subsistence
economy. Yartsa gunbu enables access to the cash economy of the 21st century for
rural Tibetans or marginalised urban populations. The market is driven by demand
from Chinese consumers in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, where yartsa
gunbu is known as dongchong xiacao, a translation of the original Tibetan name,
or in shortened form as chong cao, literally ‘worm grass’. In Traditional
Chinese Medicine (TCM), where the oldest known records of Cordyceps sinensis are
dated to the late 17th century, dongchong xiacao is prescribed for similar
health issues in the same way as it is used in TTM. The use as a lung remedy in
TCM allowed for a doubling of its value during the SARS crisis in 2003. Yartsa
gunbu also has turned into a fashionable luxury product, an exquisite culinary
status symbol to be found in high-end restaurants or served at ostentatious
dinner parties. Also, prevalent Chinese thinking and marketing suggests that the
consumer of Cordyceps is also, in some way, absorbing the ‘purity’ and
‘mystique’ of Tibet.
Already by the early 18th century in China, the monetary value of yartsa gunbu
was equal to the same weight in silver. However, the value plummeted during the
tumultuous years after the PRC take over of Tibetan regions in the 1950s. In the
1960s and 70s trade on the plateau was monopolized by the state sector. Rural
Tibetans had to fulfil imposed collection quotas and trade outside of the
official channels was very risky. These circumstances, it seems, curbed the
demand and the market for yartsa gunbu became very unstable. With economic
liberalisation in the 1980s, however, prices picked up and collection became
attractive again for rural communities.
From 1997 to 2006 prices have increased by 500%; an average of over 20% per year
for collectors and middlemen. Currently 1 kg of dried Yartsa Gunbu bought in
Lhasa costs from 20,000 to 80,000 Yuan (UK1,427 to 5,711; US$2,800 to $11,200;
EUR2,000 to 8,000) depending on its quality. In 2007, the very best quality had
a retail price in coastal Chinese cities of more than 240,000 Yuan per kg
(UK16,300; US$32,000; EUR24,000,), making it more expensive than gold. In 1999,
through to 2004, production of yartsa gunbu was reported at 35-50 tonnes
annually in the TAR; overall annual production on the Tibetan Plateau is
estimated at 100-200 tonnes. According to ecologist Daniel Winkler’s website
about Cordyceps sinensis in Tibet, collection and sales generated 40% of the
rural cash income in TAR. In prime production areas, the income contribution
reaches 70-90% of a household’s cash income. Thus, yartsa gunbu has developed
into the single most important source of cash for rural households in
contemporary Tibet. In 2004, yartsa gunbu contributed at least 1.8 billion Yuan
(UK114.7 million; US$225m; EUR153.2m) to TAR’s GDP, representing 42% of the
primary sector (agriculture, livestock and forestry) and exceeding the total of
the secondary sector (industry and mining) by nearly 20%, when correlated to
figures in the official Tibet Statistical Yearbook. In short, rural Tibet is
currently largely dependent on income from this fungus. It is remarkable, that
the cash infusion via the yartsa gunbu trade in the last ten years seems to have
accomplished what 50 years of top-down Beijing-prescribed development schemes
hardly achieved, the integration of rural Tibetans into Mainland China’s
economy. The cash income from the yartsa gunbu trade has acted as a catalyst for
rural economic development, and this has been expressed in a general
commodification of rural Tibet. The economic integration is well symbolised by
herders exchanging their horses for motorcycles.
http://www.tibetinfonet.net/content/display_image/270208-2
Due to its ever-increasing value, more and more Tibetans comb the
vast high altitude grasslands in search for the tiny fungus in spring and early
summer. According to county officials, Chamdo prefecture’s Dengchen county, TAR,
(Chin: Dingqing) mobilized 60% of its inhabitants to collect yartsa gunbu, since
it was the single most important source of money in the county. Each year, more
counties are making similarly organised efforts due to the recognition of its
steadily increasing economic significance. Most counties in the TAR, Sichuan,
Yunnan and Qinghai require collection permits and charge fees, and while the
permit fees for local residents are in the range of 40 to 400 Yuan (UK2.50-25;
US$5-54, EUR4-40), fees for non-residents in southern Qinghai reach 4,000 Yuan
(UK275; US$540, EUR400), nearly twice the annual per capita income in rural TAR.
These fees are charged to migrant collectors, who number, according to a Qinghai
government investigation, in the hundreds of thousands and are mostly Chinese
Muslim (Hui) and Chinese (Han), but also Tibetans from other prefectures.
Disputes between residents fighting over access to collection areas or between
residents and migrant collectors, who are often regarded as poachers, continue
to result in violent clashes, with some each year turning deadly. For example,
in 2006 in Zatoe County (Pinyin: Zaduo, Jyekundo / Yushu prefecture, Qinghai
province), residents were incensed that prefectural officials had sold expensive
collection permits, guaranteeing access to their grasslands, to several thousand
migrant collectors without sharing profits with the residents who hold the usage
rights for these pastures.
Sustainability of collection is of great concern. Some experts and government
agencies worry about the sustainability of present harvesting and favour
regulation beyond current collection fees and licenses. In the PRC, Cordyceps
sinensis is a Class 2 protected species, which translates in reality to the
simple requirement of special licenses for export. The first TAR-wide
regulations on collection and protection of Yartsa Gunbu were published in
Chinese in April 2006. These regulations stipulate that county administrations
keep records of production and map out production areas. Furthermore, it
proposes the formulation of a management plan, the standardisation of the
county-issued collection licenses and emphasises the responsibility of
administrations to “maintain harmony” during collection season; a clear
reference to annually occurring violent clashes when collectors fight over
resource access. This regulation was followed in December 2006 by a TAR
conference addressing these issues and providing a framework for implementation.
It is still too early to judge if these initiatives will bear fruit.
Overall, the current pressure on natural populations of Cordyceps sinensis has
clearly reduced the harvesting rate for individual collectors, an issue remarked
upon by many collectors. So far, yartsa gunbu is still distributed in areas
where it has been collected for centuries. Whether the reduced individual
harvest rate reported by collectors translates into an overall natural output
reduction is not clear, since so many more people are collecting. Furthermore,
the reliability of the government statistics has not been verified by
independent research. Recently, a Financial Times special quoted Yang Derong, a
Cordyceps expert, who was reported as having observed a crash in natural
production. However, reliable baseline data regarding annual production and
field studies regarding the impact of collection pressure are not available. The
annually increasing harvest pressure and the absence of reliable monitoring
clearly necessitates government-funded research to formulate sound management
strategies to secure the long-term productivity of Cordyceps sinensis. A crash
of the yartsa gunbu production, or a fall in its value through replacement by
farm-raised artificially infected larvae, a practice that has so far met with
limited success, would have a devastating impact on marginalised rural Tibetan
communities.
- end –
Back to Archived Reports List