Design team, sponsor, officials involved in controversial fireworks show in Himalayas held accountable

LHASA, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- The design team, the sponsor Arc'teryx and several local officials have been held accountable for a controversial fireworks display staged in an ecologically sensitive area of the Himalayas in southwest China's Xizang Autonomous Region, according to local authorities.

The city of Xigaze, also known as Shigatse, in Xizang, on Wednesday announced the findings of an investigation into the fireworks display that had drawn widespread attention online.

The fireworks display, staged on Sept. 19 in Xigaze's Gyangze County, was a collaboration between Arc'teryx, the outdoor sports brand that sponsored the show, and fireworks designer Cai Guo-Qiang. The event sparked widespread online controversy over environmental protection.

According to a statement from local authorities, they took the matter seriously after a video of the "ascending dragon" fireworks show circulated online and subsequently launched an investigation.

The investigation revealed that the fireworks, lasting approximately 52 seconds, were launched at an altitude of 4,670 to 5,020 meters, affecting a grassland area of 30.06 hectares.

An analysis of the ecological impact concluded that the incident constituted a human disturbance in an ecologically sensitive area of the plateau, causing some environmental disruption. While the short-term pollution and damage were limited, the report noted that long-term ecological risks require ongoing monitoring.

The investigation also found that Cai's art studio carried out activities that damaged grasslands in ecologically fragile areas and failed to properly clean up fireworks residue and plastic debris during the event, allegedly violating laws and regulations on ecological conservation on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and local grasslands.

The relevant administrative authorities in Xigaze have filed a case against these illegal activities.

Additionally, several officials from Gyangze County involved in approving the show were held accountable for inappropriate decision-making, inadequate supervision, and other violations. ■