Latest Articles green monitor

Which way forward for Chinese NGOs?

China Dialogue — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:18:00 -0400

New regulations on open government information have ushered in a new environment for the country’s NGOs. chinadialogue asked He Ping how green groups can best use their increasing influence.

China’s domestic non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have seen huge changes in their operating environment since the implementation of new laws on open government informationon May 1, 2008. Consequently, chinadialogue’s Beijing branch had many questions to ask. How can environmental NGOs play a role in society? What differences do Chinese groups have with their overseas counterparts? Which fields can and should they enter? How can student groups sustain themselves? To help answer these issues, chinadialogue talked to He Ping, president of the Washington-based International Fund for China’s Environment.

chinadialogue (cd): As someone who works with environmental NGOs, what positive developments have you seen regarding Chinese green groups in recent years?

He Ping (HP): Their growth has been rapid in the past 10 years or so. Only 10 to 20 organisations attended the first NGO Forum in Washington DC in 1999. In Beijing in 2003 we had over 100. There are now over 2,000 organisations, including the student groups. And they have become more influential. Their voices have become more widely heard through the debates about the Nu River dam, the considerations around the project at the Old Summer Palace, energy efficiency campaigns and so on. The public is more aware of NGOs and the government attitude is changing, too.

Student groups are growing very quickly; grassroots NGOs have seen some progress; and the number of government-associated NGOs is increasing. At the same time, NGOs are becoming involved in a greater number of fields – not just education and conservation. There are also NGOs involved in environmental policy, oversight and rights advocacy.

cd: What factors do you see limiting China’s environmental NGOs?

HP: There are still some worries. Government policies restricting NGOs have not been relaxed; many organisations still cannot operate normally. There may be a lack of awareness and understanding at a government level of the role of NGOs in a modern society. NGOs do not have a platform on which to operate. This means environmental protection work achieves poor results despite huge efforts, and social issues remain unsolved.

For example, we had some problems holding the fifth NGO Forum in Wuhan last year. Holding an international conference in China used to mean approval from an organisation at sub-ministerial level. We always worked with Renmin University, and if the dean said it was fine we could go ahead. But last year the government insisted that the Ministry of Education give its approval. The ministry wasn’t familiar with us and had no interest in NGOs, so it didn’t want to approve the forum. However, I have good links with Wuhan University, and they got in touch with the ministry, who contacted the education office at the Chinese embassy in Washington. We have a good relationship with them, and they put in a good word for us – finally, the ministry approved the conference. NGO advocacy in China isn’t easy – you need a lot of contacts.

Funding is another bottleneck. Many groups operate on a volunteer basis, which prevents them from exerting real influence. There’s a need for improvement in NGOs’ abilities: management, projects and public relations.

cd: What do you see as the main differences between environmental NGOs in China and their counterparts overseas?

HP: There are a few differences. The first is influence. NGOs in other countries have a great influence on environmental legislation and nature conservation, and have a direct influence on decisions about major projects. That isn’t yet the case for Chinese NGOs. Second, there is a difference in membership numbers and public support. In the United States, large environmental NGOs like the Sierra Club have over one million members and can mobilise on a large scale for major events. But, excluding industry associations, the largest Chinese NGO has about 10,000 members and limited public participation and support. Third, there is a difference in funding. Large American NGOs have budgets approaching US$100 million. In China, only a few approach US$1 million and many do not have any regular funding. Domestic funding channels are too limited, and there is little in the way of public donations.

The size of green groups in China stands in contrast to the enormity of the environmental crisis. The new Ministry of Environmental Protection should break out of old ways of administering the environment and do something of value for NGO development. Otherwise there is little cause for optimism for China’s environment.

cd: How can good relationships be established between NGOs, government and the people?

HP: NGOs and government should be partners, with NGO activities and projects promoting public involvement in environmental protection. They should assist the government in environmental management – providing information, reporting situations, putting forward proposals and so on. And at the same time the government should be overseen by NGOs – in some cases the government is responsible for environmentally damaging behavior. Government officials should be invited to participate in NGO activities whenever possible. NGOs should strengthen cooperation with organisations like the People’s Representatives’ Congress and Political Consultative Conference, as they are more tolerant of civil society, easier to work with and have a direct influence over government. NGOs should have regular interactions with the public, who benefit from many NGO activities. Full use should be made of the media, so as many people as possible are aware of what groups are doing. And where the traditional media does not provide, the internet is now an alternative. The more people know what NGOs are doing, the more participation and support they will receive. NGO influence comes not from money and power, but from awareness and information. The more people are participating – and the more reports are seen – the better.

cd: What fields do you think NGOs should work in the most? How can they play a larger role in these areas?

HP: There are no limits on the fields in which NGOs can work. They should choose projects according to their abilities and the circumstances in which they find themselves, focussing on what they are best able to do and on what the public is most concerned about. Today there are many environmental issues in China, wherever you look. If you choose the right one and stick with it, you will get results in the end. For example, those with a medical background could investigate links between disease and the environment in a certain population. Engineers can monitor the environmental impact assessments for a particular project. Organisations located near sites of cultural significance could assess environmental impacts on those locations and make suggestions to those responsible for their protection. But NGOs need to have clear goals and a focus – they cannot do everything.

Most of China’s NGOs are still small. They need to come together if they are to have any influence. This happens more frequently in Beijing, but it needs to happen elsewhere. Student groups need to link up with NGOs: they are often working on the same issues, but separately and to less effect. Use modern technology to raise your voices, increase your influence and fight for public support. Choose issues related to people’s lives: noise pollution in some areas, water pollution in others. Carry out surveys and analysis and bring together interested parties to discuss and propose solutions. When appropriate get the media on board and invite government and public attention.

cd: Will the new rulings on open government information – the Provisions on the Disclosure of Government Information and Method for Disclosure of Environmental Information – help environmental NGOs? How should they use these new rules?

HP: They are powerful tools and they will be a great help to NGO activities. NGO workers need to fully understand and utilise them. Many NGO activities are restricted by a lack of information. The US has a “right to know” law that requires firms that store or bury harmful substances to inform nearby residents, a law that was of huge value to the green movement. As a result of that ruling, many companies have released the effects of chemicals on the human body, such as the effects of lead in paint. There’s a gap between regulations coming into effect and their implementation. NGOs need to publicise and utilise the rules. If there are successful examples of their use this year, the experience will be instructive for further information disclosure efforts.

cd: You have always been very supportive of student environmental groups. How do you think they can improve their work under these new circumstances?

HP: Since 2001 we have been supporting university student groups and we have trained 200 of their leaders. They are becoming more and more active. Last year the China Youth Climate Action Network was founded and it is currently active in campus energy-saving campaigns. Student groups have a unique position in China today, they are less limited and there’s a lot they can do.

Almost every university has an environmental group, but they don’t have many members. Perhaps because the content and nature of their activities isn’t novel enough, but student activities shouldn’t be limited to the campus – they should look to environmental issues in surrounding communities and cities, investigate and put forward proposals. They can regularly visit local elementary and middle schools to publicise environmental knowledge and concepts, and work with schools and communities on activities such as Earth Day and Environment Day. They need to work within society and increase their influence. The problems of succession within groups need to be considered. New students need to be recruited to replace those who graduate, in order to ensure continued and stable growth.

Homepage photo by Joshua Wickerham

Why is China different for western brands?

Paul French — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:24:00 -0400

Western retail companies have found there are real business benefits to going green. But when the same firms enter the Chinese consumer market, Paul French finds, the standards often change.

The environment debate is moving up the agenda in China, not least because Chinese people increasingly care about green issues. You can see it in the record numbers of young Chinese looking for internships at green NGOs, for instance, or in the so-called “middle class” protests around issues like the proposed petrochemical plant in Xiamen, Fujian province, or this year’s anti-Maglev demonstrations in Shanghai.

For western companies, the need for an environmental strategy in China is essential. Yet those companies working at the interface between Chinese consumers and western brands appear to be the most lax. This is perplexing to those of us working in the Chinese retail and consumer market, where doing the right thing ultimately means gaining consumer loyalty and a competitive advantage. Being “eco-friendly” in the consumer sphere can have a far more immediately tangible business benefit than in industry or manufacturing. However, brands seem to have missed this seemingly self-evident point.

Many non-Chinese consumer brands operate in China, but do not implement the same range of “eco-friendly” initiatives that they do in Europe, North America or, indeed, other parts of Asia. Consider, for instance, some examples from the fast-food business, one industry that has not matched the environmental and health-improvement standards it applies in other countries with the same degree of effort in China:

• In Hong Kong, McDonald’s has two “no straw days” every month, but it does not have them on the Chinese mainland. The company does not substitute super-size options for a “Gofit” adult happy meal in China, as it does in the United States. McDonald’s Happy Meals targeted at children in the US come with “better-for-you” substitutes, such as milk and apple dippers, but not in China;

• Burger King, which has just announced a major expansion of outlets in China, in many countries offers chilled apple slices as an alternative to french fries, with no-fat apple sauce dips. They already offer milk as an alternative to cola in many markets, but they do not offer any of these items in China;

• Sandwich-chain Subway is expanding quickly in China. In the US, the chain has launched a “Fresh Fit for Kids” menu, with apples or raisins as a replacement for potato crisps; but not in China;

• Starbucks now offers low-calorie drinks and better food options for kids in the west; but, again, not in China;

• In Singapore, Minute Maid orange juice comes with a series of “Lifewise” tips from the National Healthcare Group, stressing the importance of exercise and vitamin intake. No such advice is dispensed on Minute Maid’s packaging in China.

And it is not just the fast-food giants:

• Banking chain HSBC sends its mail in Hong Kong on recyclable paper, in envelopes that note the bank is committed to protecting the environment. None of this is mentioned on envelopes sent to Chinese mainland addresses;

• Luxury retailer LVMH’s new Catherine Deneuve-led advertising campaign features a tag line that supports the Climate Project. It appears everywhere from London to Hong Kong, but not on their ads in the Chinese mainland;

Others planning to come into the Chinese market have so far remained uncommitted. Retailers Marks and Spencer aim to open in China later this year, but will not say if their Chinese stores will confirm to their much-hyped corporate social responsibility package, “Plan A” (“because there is no Plan B”, as they put it).

What can we conclude from this? Perhaps fast-food companies only do the right thing when public opinion forces them to. Maybe they think where there are few chains offering anything substantially different, there is less chance people will go elsewhere.

Western brands, however, do comply where legislation has forced change. Walk into a branch of Burger King or McDonald’s in Taiwan, for example, and the rubbish bins are separated for recycling, as local laws demand. How difficult would it be to introduce separate bins in mainland China? It one example where western brands could take the lead and provide a focus for China’s growing band of environmentally concerned citizens, rather than sit back and do nothing until it is mandated.

This year, however, things will change as new rules come in to limit wasteful and non-recyclable packaging. Until now, packaging legislation in China has related more to hygiene issues, but the government is now drafting legislation aimed at reducing waste. The new laws will have far-reaching implications for the entire consumer products supply chain: manufacturers, packagers, distributors, suppliers of raw ingredients and production equipment, as well as advertisers and marketers. They will also affect the requirement to collect and recycle packaging waste. Crucially for product manufacturers, the new legislation will mandate that “the entity that pollutes shall control the pollution, the entity packaging the products shall be responsible for disposal of abandoned packaging materials”. In practice, this means that all packaging produced should be either recyclable or degradable – and must be recoverable. Manufacturers and retailers will have to reduce the amount and weight of packaging they use, and they will be encouraged to improve materials and technology.

The government will also demand the introduction of waste recovery and recycling systems. This will affect local governments, but it will also fall back on manufacturers and retailers, under the same premise that “the entity that pollutes…”. This is one area where foreign companies should expect to be targeted and “outed” if they do not comply.

Furthermore, the government will regulate the transportation and storage of recyclable and recycled materials; a “recycled materials trading system” is to be established under “market” conditions (this may resemble a carbon trading market). To assist the companies involved, the government has announced that it is preparing a detailed catalogue of materials and production processes that have been categorised into groups according to whether they are to be “encouraged, restricted or become obsolete (banned)”.

All very well, but – as with most such legislation in China – the proof will be in the enforcement. To police the new packaging legislation, China will set up new inter-agency enforcement teams that span central and local government departments. These may be part of the planned shake-up of the central government’s ministerial structure, expected later in 2008. These agencies will be empowered to inflict penalties on companies for infringements of the new regulations, including bringing criminal proceedings.

Understanding that the public itself can be mobilised to act as the eyes and ears of the government, the legislation will include provisions for whistle-blowers to be given the right to report the waste of resources, environmental damage and the excessive use of packaging. The provisions include state protection for whistle-blowers, as well as rewards for bringing legitimate cases – a strong incentive in an increasingly litigious society such as China’s.

Similarly indicative of this sea-change in government policy, the Chinese government has announced it will to ban shops from giving away free plastic shopping bags, effective from June 2008. This is a further bid to curb the country’s massive and spiralling pollution problem. The State Council has targeted the ultra-thin plastic bags routinely given out by retailers, but will cover all kinds of plastic bags. This, the government hopes, will encourage consumers to use reusable cloth bags or shopping baskets instead, and to think more about how they use – and waste – packaging. To date, only IKEA actively encourages shoppers to buy their recyclable bags, others still give them away in large volumes.

Hopefully these new regulations will force retailers to rise to the challenge and encourage Chinese consumers to become more aware. It is sad, however, that western brands and retailers could have easily been ahead of the curve, really taken the lead and raised the bar above what the government now requires. But they did not – and it does not reflect well on them.

Paul French is the Chief China Analyst at Access Asia, a consumer markets research firm. He lives in Shanghai

Homepage photo by mars

Your right to know: a historic moment

Jun Ma — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:54:00 -0400

Today marks an important milestone for freedom of information in China. As new transparency regulations become effective, Ma Jun explains, they will provide an powerful lever for the public to monitor companies’ environmental performance.

The Measures on Open Environmental Information (for Trial Implementation) will be effective from May 1, 2008, and will provide a powerful tool to promote the public right to know in China.

As an agency that pays unusual attention to public participation, it is no surprise that China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) – now the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) – became the first ministry to respond with its own measures, based on China’s Regulations on Open Government Information, which were introduced by the State Council in January 2007 and aim to increase government transparency by allowing citizens and organisations to lawfully obtain government information.

The MEP’s measures promote pollution reduction by strengthening public involvement in environmental governance. Speaking at the release of the measures, Pan Yue, vice-minister at SEPA, reportedly said the new requirements for non-compliant enterprises to disclose environmental information and violations of discharge standards would empower the people to participate in environmental management.

The measures require environment agencies to disclose 17 different kinds of environmental information, including regional environmental quality, amounts of discharge and the records of polluters in various regions. According to the measures, the following information on polluters should be made available to the public:

• A list of enterprises violating discharge standards or exceeding discharge quota limit;

• Letters, visits and complaints filed about pollution caused by enterprises; and the result of their disposal;

• Administrative punishments, reviews, lawsuits and enforcement;

• A list of enterprises causing major and extremely large pollution accidents and incidents;

• Enterprises that refuse to comply with the effective administrative punishment decisions.

Besides the requirement on open government information, the measures made specific requirements on corporate disclosure. The measures stipulate that:

• Enterprises listed for violating discharge standards or exceeding the discharge quota limit will publish their discharge data within 30 days in the local media and register the data with the local government agency. The local agency has the right to verify data published by enterprises.

• Polluting enterprises that fail to comply with disclosure requirements will be fined up to 100,000 yuan (US$14,270) and their discharge data will be published by the relevant local government agencies.

• Environment agencies will be legally bound to disclose the list of polluters within 20 days on the agency website or through communiqués, press conferences, newspapers, radio or television.

• If environment agencies fail to publish such a list, the measures entitle the public to apply for this disclosure. Environmental agencies shall respond within 15 days, or after no more than another 15 days of extension.

• If an environment agency turns down the public application for disclosure, the public may report this to the superior environmental authorities, which shall then urge the subordinate agency to fulfill their disclosure duties. The public may apply for administrative review or file administrative suits if they believe that the rejection of disclosure has infringed upon their legal rights.

It is well-known that there is weak enforcement of laws and regulations in China. As a law that reflects new thinking, the implementation of the measures is expected to be even more challenging. Local and international environmental groups, along with agencies and the media, are making great efforts to promote awareness of the measures so that this historic chance will not be missed.

The measures make it possible for NGOs to fill in the blanks on enterprises caught violating emissions standards. Our organisation, the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), is refining our water and air pollution database so that we can update our corporate discharge datasheet after the measures come into effect. This new data can make IPE’s database more comprehensive, and it will eventually allow users to compare the volume of discharge by listed polluters.

Besides making disclosure mandatory for listed polluters, the measures also encourage other companies to voluntarily share pollution data with the public.

IPE believes that it will make far more sense to the public if the data disclosed by companies could be published in a consistent and cross-comparable way. To facilitate a more standardised disclosure, IPE has created a discharge data disclosure form, which it has distributed to local and multinational companies.

It is highly encouraging that some leading corporate citizens have already decided to voluntarily share discharge data with the public. Esquel Group, one of the world's leading producers of cotton shirts, in March became the first company to make a voluntary disclosure of its discharge data in response to government and public requirements. The company filled out the form and provided basic water and air emissions data from its major shirt manufacturing base, including its emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

Data such as this will appear in the new version of IPE’s database and will serve as a de facto benchmark for the textile industry, one of the major sources of wastewater and a large energy consumer in China.

Companies operating in China need to start anticipating the need for short- and long-term measures to cope with this evolving situation. In the short term, companies in China will need to ensure that they have corporate discharge monitoring and data collection systems in place. IPE has found that many companies, including large multinational companies operating in China, have major gaps in their data collection, categorisation and documentation of discharge data.

Our activities have incentivised some companies to take action to fill this information gap. The German company Bosch, for instance, presented documents to IPE showing it has developed a database to track and compile the internal and external monitoring data of its dozen subsidiaries in China. This interaction with IPE also led Bosch (China) Investment Ltd. to commit to voluntarily disclose basic discharge and energy efficiency data from April 2008.

The US experience demonstrated that when companies improved performance under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) scheme, it could generate good publicity and help the company regain public trust. A more transparent environmental management system in China can be expected to increase the competitiveness of companies with a good environmental performance.

Ma Jun is director of the Institute of Public and Environment Affairs

Homepage photo by Ming Xia via Flickr

A new frontier for public participation

Friends of Nature — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:58:00 -0400

New transparency regulations will help local communities become more involved in environmental affairs. Friends of Nature, a Chinese green group, welcomes the government’s efforts.

The number of petitions lodged with the Chinese government dropped by 15.5% in 2006, according to figures from the sixth work meeting on petitioning. However, petitions and mass public protests related to environmental issues increased by 30%. The environment had become one of the five main reasons that citizens lodge petitions. Worsening pollution, along with greater environmental and rights awareness, has had a powerful effect on the public. Participation is becoming more and more widespread; it is becoming a force to be reckoned with.

In particular, the dramatic public opposition to the paraxylene (PX) petrochemical project in Xiamen, southeast China, has become a symbol of renewed public participation in the country.

During the major Chinese government sessions of 2007 (the National People’s Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, which are held simultaneously), 105 members of the CPPCC signed a motion opposing the proposed building of the PX project in Haicang district, Xiamen. Investment in the project was set to reach 10.8 billion yuan (around US$1.5 billion) and the plant would have added 80 billion yuan (US$11.5 billion) to the city’s annual economic output. But the PX plant was set to be positioned only seven kilometres from the city centre and the well-known scenic area of Gulangyu. Additionally, Haicang district was being opened up as one of the city’s new residential areas. The sensitive, high-risk location of the proposed plant stirred up fierce opposition from CPPCC members and the public in Xiamen. Countless citizens took to the streets to make their voices heard.

On 30 May, 2007, the Xiamen city government officially postponed construction on the PX plant. A week later, China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) – now the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) – demanded a comprehensive environmental appraisal of the plant’s impacts on the surrounding area. In December, the city government invited citizens to choose representatives to take part in an environmental hearing in south Haicang district. Of the 49 citizen representatives who took part in the meeting, over 40 expressed their firm opposition to the PX project. Following the meeting, the Fujian provincial government and Xiamen city government reportedly decided to respect public opinion. The plant would not be built in Haicang. The project was moved to the Gulei peninsula, in Zhangzhou.

These protests, however, were not unique to China. Another significant environmental protest took place in Beijing last year. The city government planned to build a waste-to-energy generator near a landfill site in Liulitun, in the northwest of Haidian district. The plant would have burned 1,200 tonnes of domestic waste and produced 400 tonnes of compost every day. But many residential compounds had already been built in the Liulitun area, and residents were worried about the pollution the plant would create. They repeatedly appealed to the government concerning the choice of location for the plant, and their efforts attracted widespread interest. On 12 December, 2007, SEPA suggested that the local government should conduct a deeper investigation into the potential impacts of the plant. Before the results were announced, they said, the project should be postponed. The Beijing Communist Party Committee and the city government began to pay serious attention and agreed that as long as the public were not clear on the issues, the project should not go ahead. Construction on the project was halted and the Haidian district government and Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau are now preparing an expert investigation.

These two events show not only how citizens can make a rational defence of their rights, but also how public participation is increasing in power. The response of the government – self-discipined, rational and willing to listen to public opinion – is representative of a new attitude to governance. This new stance has been extremely popular with the public. These events occurred because of inadequacies in the planning and construction process: environmental appraisals were not far-reaching enough and project appraisals lacked openness, meaning the public could not participate. Planned environmental appraisals are of great importance. Pan Yue, vice-minister at the MEP, said that new regulations on environmental appraisals, which are currently in the pipeline, will include an article that specifies an increased level of public participation in the process. According to these regulations, parties that propose projects must disclose information and seek out opinions from the public; where strong opinions exist, they must hold hearings.

Environmental law

Last year, as the government strengthened environmental legislation, enthusiasm for public participation in environmental law reached unprecedented levels. The revision of the new water pollution law is a good example. On 5 September, 2007, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress presented a draft of the law to the public and asked for suggestions, arousing widespread interest. By 10 October, the committee had received 2,400 suggestions and 67 letters. Laws on public participation in the creation of environmental legislation also became more comprehensive.

Public access to information is a prerequisite for public participation. In 2006, a temporary law on public participation in environmental appraisals was released, along with a law on public participation in environmental protection. In April 2007, SEPA announced the trial implementation of a law on public access to environmental information. As of May 1, 2008, this law becomes effective. It is the first set of regulations on open government information since the State Council passed new rules on public access to information. It is also the first set of departmental regulations on the release of environmental information and is extremely significant in promoting public participation in environmental protection. In the environmental sector, the public’s right to know now has a legal guarantee, which provides a solid foundation for the public’s right to environmental participation and supervision.

Chinese environmental regulations have always provided public access to information in principle. But there was a lack of viable regulations concerning who would release information and what would happen if they refused. This has been a huge hindrance to public participation. The new laws are more precisely targeted: they make clear who has to release information and to what extent. Environmental protection bureaus at all levels are required to publicise 17 types of information including environmental laws and regulations, policies, standards, administrative permissions and decisions. Businesses whose emissions exceed standards will be forced to publicise four types of information and will not be allowed to use corporate confidentiality as an excuse. Other businesses will be encouraged to voluntarily provide information. The law also stipulates exactly how the information should be released and outlines powers to punish those who conceal information. Companies that do not release data can be investigated and fined by environmental departments. Members of the public who feel that the environmental departments have infringed upon their rights can apply for decisions to be reconsidered or file an administrative lawsuit.

From awareness to action

Last year saw a huge rise in public interest in the environment; NGOs responded by organising a wide range of public events. On 5 June, State Council leaders held discussions on the environment in the government compound at Zhongnanhai, to which they invited representatives of community groups from the grassroots. On 9 December, a question was added to the national civil service exam concerning the discussions initiated by NGOs over the Nu River dam project.

The People’s Livelihood Index, produced by the China Environmental Culture Promotion Association, was praised as a barometer for public environmental awareness and behaviour. A survey in 2007 showed that of nine different social issues, pollution came second only to commodity prices as the issue of utmost concern to people. Of the people surveyed, 46.1% said they were concerned about pollution, up 3.8% on the previous year; 66.9% of people thought that China’s environmental situation was either “very serious” or “quite serious”, up 3.9%.

The public also agrees with government efforts on the environment: 64.4% of people thought that the central government took the question of the environment “extremely seriously” or “quite seriously”, up 3.4% on the previous year; 73.1% of people supported the introduction of green GDP; 44% thought the main cause of pollution is a “unilateral focus on economic development”; and 58.3% believe that “businesses care only about their own development” and that many companies lack social responsibility when it comes to the environment.

The 2007 People’s Livelihood Survey gave the public a score of 42.1 points for environmental awareness, 36.6 points for environmental behaviour and 44.7 points for satisfaction with the environment: failure on all three counts – and a warning that public awareness and behaviour need to be improved. Behaviour clearly fell behind awareness. Almost half of people thought that they were “not very important” or “not at all important” in environmental protection. Only 13.7% believed their role was “extremely important” or “quite important”. People feel reliant on others for environmental protection, which demonstrates the government has not done a good job in laying the foundations for public participation.

The government has seemingly recognised this problem. When talking about its “unbending commitment to developing socialist democratic governance,” the report from the 17^th Party Congress mentions the importance of “developing grassroots democracy and guaranteeing more substantial and more numerous democratic rights…bringing into play social organisations and public participation in order to reflect public demands and improving the ability of society to self-govern.” This demonstrates the government’s commitment to expanding public participation – and could provide a more advanced starting point for public participation in the future.

This is an edited extract from the Green Book 2007, published by Friends of Nature, a Beijing-based NGO. It is translated and reproduced here with permission.

Homepage photo by Thomas F. Peng via Flickr

Public participation: highs and lows

Xinzhou Song — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:51:00 -0500

Green thinking is on the ascendant in China, but the public is still confused. Public participation needs to top the environmental agenda – for government and NGOs, writes Song Xinzhou.

“Three highs and one low” is used to describe projects that are high input, high energy consumption, high pollution and low efficiency. The phrase has been used by China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) to describe polluters denied project approval in the past year. But over the same period, public participation in the environment seems to have developed its own “three highs and one low”. Enthusiasm is “high”, calls for support are “high”, the costs are certainly high – but the overall social impact is low.

Low enthusiasm

Enthusiasm for public participation in China may seem high, but this is mainly because more people have been directly affected by increasingly frequent ecological disasters. These catastrophes have started to impact whole regions, rather than just isolated areas. The rural environment has long been neglected by government, and polluting industries enjoy less regulation and lower costs. Village after village is struck down by illness due to long-term pollution health effects, and locals are taking to the frontlines of environmental protection. In urban areas, oversights and a lack of coordination between various agencies – planning, environmental, health, city administration, street committees and the police – have led to lots of small issues building into big problems. Enormous interest groups are appearing, which have negative effects on people's lives. In order to defend their own health and rights, people are being forced to care about the environment.

But this enthusiasm, aroused by specific events that directly affect people’s lives, is often transitory and unreal. When an interest in the environment only stems from a desire to protect our basic needs, we often lose interest as soon as the problem has been slightly alleviated and life can return to normal. The enthusiasm for participation evaporates before the problem has actually been solved.

False enthusiasm is also created by the identical green events that have sprung up in recent years like bamboo shoots after the spring rain. These events are often run by businesses to serve their own interests and distribute company propaganda. A lack of environmental knowledge, leadership and management means the public is often misled by these events and can lose the ability to discriminate between different sources of environmental information.

Much public enthusiasm is superficial and stems from a pragmatic need to protect one's own interests. In short, it is nothing more than an illusion.

Calls for support

The Chinese government has increased its focus on the environment in recent years. National and local media outlets have carried out propaganda efforts. Most of national broadcaster CCTV’s channels have aired programmes about the environment.

But the involvement of interest groups and the complexity of environmental issues means misleading information is still disseminated, which is influencing people's lifestyle, work and investment choices. Readers looking for proof of this phenomenon need look no further than the forestry companies making money under the banner of conservation.

There is also an increasing number of environmental awards. However, businesses and officials take part in these events to improve their image, and the public is confused. People want to know: “What can we do about the environment?”

Government and media intervention has, of course, helped to alleviate and draw attention to environmental problems. But China is a huge country, and even 24-hour broadcasts would only cover a small proportion of these issues, which have built up over decades. The exasperated sighs of SEPA officials, who deal with local governments and firms that protect their own interests by concealing the truth, are a testament to this. Moreover, limits placed on reporting mean many problems do not receive timely attention.

SEPA’s recent efforts have been praiseworthy, but the department has limited powers to enforce the law. Local governments’ attitudes when faced by SEPA inspection teams reveal their opinion of environmental protection. As soon as their interests are infringed upon, they react fiercely. We need to study the implications of the untimely death of “green GDP” and the strong resistance it received from local government. The apparent expansion of green thinking should not make us blindly optimistic. Beneath the surface, many problems are still unsolved. The spread of environmental knowledge by the government and media still has its deficiencies. If we don't recognise this, how can we take appropriate action?

High costs

There are three main ways that China continues to pay a high cost for its environmental problems. First, there is relatively small value of its efforts to control environmental problems. Second, the pursuit of short-term development continues to trump the inestimable future value of sustainable long-term development. Third, environmental problems have given rise to many “mass incidents”, as people attempt to uphold their rights.

It may appear that the government foots the bill in the first two cases, but in fact it is the public that pays the price, since funds that could be used for economic development, poverty alleviation, education and other social services end up being used to tackle environmental problems.

The greatest cost to public participation is the third type, however. Since there is only a low level of awareness regarding public participation, many people will only participate spontaneously when their rights are infringed. Gathering evidence and taking offenders to court is extremely difficult, and people cannot afford to pay experts to take samples and carry out tests. In any case, expert organisations are often funded or managed by local government and may not even help. An added problem is that protests can leave people open to revenge attacks from local government and other interest groups.

NGOs: low impact

For these reasons, citizens concerned about the environment are turning away from participation. The public is becoming a passive observer of government activity, cynical and mistrustful of environmental governance. Those who do take part are concerned, wondering if the government will act. Public ignorance concerning environmental policy means their effectiveness is limited.

Environmental NGOs, after more than a decade of existence in China, should play a part in environmental protection. These groups, however, which should be the most active in encouraging public participation and spreading knowledge, seem divorced from the public. They should not become green cliques with their own private concerns.

Many green NGOs lack expertise and are simply made up of concerned citizens. They can be more emotional than rational, and ill-equipped to put forward proposals on the environment. This can make them seem closed to the public. Immersed in a world of their own, they can become desensitised to the real environmental problems. There are few NGOs effectively spreading environmental information among the public.

There is also no complete system for the government management of NGOs. Many green NGOs have an ambiguous status. Their development is restricted and they have problems with operations and management. The level of public recognition is low when it comes to NGOs, apart from a few with expert members that have been influential in specific cases.

The road ahead for Chinese environmental protection lies in public participation. Innovation and experimentation also will be essential. Only cooperation between government, industry and the public will bring about real change and a new era in public participation in the environment.

Song Xinzhou is the founder of the website Green Beijing. This article is an extract of a piece that first appeared on the website.

Homepage photo by wjpbennett

How volunteers can help freedom of information

Dongting Lu — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:51:00 -0400

Transparency regulations for business and government will help China’s ailing environment, writes Lu Dongting. But they will not go far enough, unless they incorporate the important work of environmental volunteers.

The new transparency regulations, recently released by China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA),have generated a lot of debate. But reading the document, I found myself asking: “If we only end up reading official information, what is the point in transparency?”

Successful public participation in environmental policy-making requires that relevant information is made freely available, and resulting public opinion is taken into account.

Environmental protection is often restricted to the actions of business and government. Businesses are required to make environmental information public, and the government now discloses regional environmental information with greater detail than before. This lets the public know where pollution is coming from, and helps them understand the overall local situation

This information will help the public learn about environmental protection. The more detailed it is, the better the public will be able to form their own opinions – and participate to a greater degree in environmental decision-making.

The public can acquire environmental information in various ways; waiting for the government or business to provide it is only one method. The public can also take the initiative: seeking out information; surveying the environment situation; and using its own potential to educate itself. It is like the difference between passive models of education: where children sit at desks, trying to absorb what the teacher tells them; and active methods where the students use their own initiative to learn.

The public often complain that government fails to supply what they need, as if they cannot supply it themselves. Sometimes I think the public is indolent, almost proud of its lack of interest. What kind of society is this, where 1.3 billion people go no further than read official pronouncements and accept them, regardless of their accuracy or detail? Can the people only gain knowledge the government hands down to them?

We live in an age of democracy and individual initiative, with extremely successful NGOs at work, yet the government is still the largest “public interest organisation”. The people should not just rely on its announcements, they should create them. We should all work together to gain accurate knowledge of the society in which we live.

Certain Chinese environmental organisations have been carrying out long-term public education projects. An important method is to bring the public closer to nature, appreciating its beauty through activities such as bird-watching, or understanding its problems by carrying out surveys of water pollution. We can gain an understanding and respect for nature, and its majesty and mystery. And learning about nature’s problems – which are mainly the consequences of human actions – can engender a sense of responsibility and consideration of how to improve the environment.

There has been a certain degree of success. Many people now understand their local environment, and are able to identify sources of pollution or consider environmental issues from a wider point of view. The number of volunteers is increasing annually, with some becoming experts.

But problems remain. There is still no national network of environmental organisations. All Chinese cities of a certain size should have robust organisations that can teach locals about their environment, but even provincial capitals often lack such a group. Organisations such as science committees, university departments, forestry and water departments should be facilitating public learning and gathering environmental information, but they are not. There is also a lack of continuity: many groups launch a flurry of short-term projects, but fail to sustain them and do little to build up their reputation. Future society will require “public environmental service providers”, groups will need to gather and monitor information about the local environment to build public credibility. This must be done in a systematic, long-term manner. Activities should be held weekly, and each event should cover a different aspect of nature-watching. The organisation should mobilise and organise the public: they should find and work with local experts, participate in and draw attention to local debate.

It is a Herculean task that SEPA and local environmental authorities are faced with. They need to help develop local environmental organisations so they can undertake this work. It is quite simple: let local people provide the funding, participate in the projects and share the results. Then produce a regular overview of the national environmental situation as revealed through volunteer efforts, which can complement information released by government and business. This is essential for effective public participation in environmental decision-making.

The public do not lack intelligence, ability, or even funding – they just lack the organisation to actively participate. Environmental organisations can help the public and government do more for transparency of environmental information; all that is needed is to establish these local organisations as soon as possible. Those that exist should be re-invigorated; and where they do not exist, they should be brought into being.

Dongting Lu is a Beijing-based reporter.

Homepage photo by Shanghai Sky

Getting involved

Jun Ma — Thu, 24 May 2007 14:09:00 -0400

China is changing, and various interest groups are all vying for power. The public can no longer rely on the authorities alone to save the environment, argues Ma Jun, people from all walks of life must participate.

The Chinese public should “make full use of the rights that the constitution grants them: the right to know, the right of expression, the right to monitor the government and participate to a greater extent in environmental protection.” These were the words of Pan Yue, deputy director of China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), in a speech marking “Green China Day” on March 31 2007.

This mention of greater public participation got a lot of people’s attention and sparked a fierce debate in the media. So, what did he mean? Here I would like to make some preliminary remarks on why greater public participation is needed, and how members of the public can participate more in conservation work.

Why greater public participation is needed

The public should participate in environmental protection because the environment is of crucial public interest. In the face of increasing environmental challenges, traditional models of participation – such as picking up litter or planting a tree once a year – are no longer effective. A deeper level of participation is needed: the public needs to get directly involved in the management of environmental public affairs and work together to find solutions.

Environment departments have been strengthening their administration for some years now. But the shortsightedness of certain local governments has meant that local officials are often unable to enforce the law. Moreover, the cost of observing the law is often higher than the cost of breaking the law: a strange situation, which has led to companies sacrificing the environment for the sake of a profit. Although central government has made environmental protection a national priority, ecological degradation has not yet been curbed. The targets for emissions reductions and reduced energy consumption, set by central government at the start of the eleventh Five-Year Plan in 2006, have not been met.

Faced with such great challenges, we urgently need to push forward environmental protection and overcome the obstacles posed by the current system. As Pan Yue made clear in his speech, the final impetus to solve China's environmental crisis will have to come from the public. It is a question of the water we drink, the air we breathe and the world our children will grow up in, and the public will not compromise on these most basic of issues. Once the public has been brought into decision-making and management processes, they will become an immovable obstacle to officials and industrialists who would abuse their power for their own ends. The public will be policy-makers that cannot be bribed by developers, law-enforcers that cannot be ignored by polluters.

The lack of public involvement is the greatest flaw in the current system of environmental and natural resources management. China is now a society with multiple interest groups. It is not enough to rely on SEPA as the lone spokesperson for the environment. The public cannot sit by and watch environmental departments fight this battle on their own; they must enter into environmental protection work and support the environmental departments.

Greater public participation is also needed to transform China’s model of achieving economic growth. It is precisely because of the lack of widespread public involvement that many local governments tend towards industrial development when deciding development policies – whether consciously or not. Allowing the public a bigger say in the policy-making process will mean that environmental risks can be properly taken into account, and projects can be vetoed if they gain political results at the expense of the environment.

Public participation would change the cost-benefit analysis of new projects: it could encourage more energy-efficient projects and industries – such as service industries. Methods of achieving economic growth would be altered, eventually helping us to balance development with conservation. We could start to “put people first” and create a harmonious society. And if we really value disadvantaged groups, we should let them have full and comprehensive information, and allow them to participate in environmental protection work. Then they can start to compete with other interest groups and attain their right to a clean environment.

How the public can engage

In recent years, China has put a lot of effort into promoting public participation in environmental policy making, with some notable successes. China passed its first law demanding public participation in 2003: the law on environmental impact assessments. The next year the State Council went further, with its plan for lawfully implementing government administration, which meant that information disclosure became the rule, rather than the exception in government.

These rulings provided a legal and political framework for further public participation. But where do we go from here? Two-thousand years ago, the philosopher Mozi was asked, “What is the greatest righteousness in conduct?” He answered: “It is like building a wall: let those who can lay the bricks, lay the bricks; let those who can apply the mortar, apply the mortar; and let those who can carry the materials, carry the materials. Then the wall can be completed. To conduct oneself with righteousness is just like this.” Today, the situation is the same: to move forward, environmental protection needs different professions to play to their strengths and work together. The China Environmental Culture Promotion Association made a proposal to mark Green China Day. They called for all those who care about the environment to take the following steps:

* If you live in a residential compound, keep an eye on local construction projects. If they look to be creating pollution, ask the relevant environmental department to hold an environmental impact assessment and hearing.

* If you are a consumer, avoid buying products from companies classed as heavy polluters by the government.

* If you are a lawyer, help and support the victims of pollution.

* If you are a People's Congress deputy or People's Consultative Conference member, put forward proposals for urgent environmental action.

* If you work in the media, use any opportunity to tell people about the environment.

* If you work in the corporate world, check to see if your company has had an environmental assessment.

* If you are a celebrity, use your fame to set a model for green behaviour.

* If you work in the government, set an example by taking practical action to implement the “scientific concept of development.”

These actions all conform to national policy and are completely lawful. And they are all forms of participation that anyone can try out in their everyday lives. Take consumer action as an example: on this year’s World Water Day, 21 Chinese environmental organisations called for Chinese consumers to make “green choices” – to take companies’ environmental performance into account when buying their products, and use purchasing power to help companies improve their environmental record. In response, over 20 companies came forward to talk to the campaign; most of them provided written information about their actions and the measures they would be taking to rectify their mistakes (for more detailed information, see http://www.ipe.org.cn). Six of these companies promised to accept third-party inspections, hoping they could prove their ability to obey regulations in future.

Recent experiences have shown that China’s conditions are not yet ripe for full public participation. However, people can still engage to a great extent, and in many different areas. Environmental issues are at the forefront of public participation due to the new rules on official transparency. Freedom of information makes public participation possible, and the new regulations provide a relatively strong legal basis for participation. All action, from environmental impact assessment hearings to the “green choice” initiative, is founded on freedom of environmental information. We can now look forward to the State Council's regulations on freedom of information – China's first such regulations – coming into force.

Of course, public participation also needs to suit the prevailing social conditions. It should work to solve problems and social contradictions. The central government, in its 2006 resolution on creating the “harmonious socialist society,” said: “Orderly political participation of citizens should be expanded at all levels to guarantee that the people administer affairs of the state, the economy, culture and social affairs in accordance with the law. Policy-making should become more scientific and democratic, and disclosure of political affairs should be widened in order to guarantee, in accordance with the law, the citizens' right to know, right to participate, right to express opinions and right to supervise the government.” Orderly participation can only be recognised as the meeting point of the interests of government, business and the public when people at all levels of society enter into environmental protection work. It is clear that the public is willing to engage in environmental management in a legitimate, reasoned and orderly way, as has been demonstrated by the experience of open environmental impact assessment hearings, the participation of environmental groups in hearings and law-making, the “green choice” consumer initiative, and the efforts companies have been making to take social responsibility more seriously. We believe that if everybody makes the effort, public participation in environmental protection work will surely increase, and there will be a new dawn for environmentalism in China.

This article was first published in Green Leaf magazine

Homepage photo by Alex Hailong

The environment needs freedom of information

Jun Ma — Wed, 09 May 2007 15:34:00 -0400

The Chinese government recently issued rules to increase official transparency, requiring companies and government departments to publish their environmental records for the first time. Ma Jun calls on citizens to make good use of the information.

On April 25, China’s State Council issued a new set of regulations on open government information. Shortly afterwards, Pan Yue, deputy director of the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), announced that trial regulations on the release of environmental information will come into effect from May 1 2008. These regulations – the first departmental rules relating to the release of state information – are a milestone on the path to guaranteeing the public’s right to access environmental information. The regulations make wider public participation in conservation possible, and provide an incentive for environmental departments to act according to the law.

My organisation, the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, has been developing a Chinese water pollution database since June last year. We have greatly appreciated China’s recent advances in the release of environmental information, but we have also witnessed how much work needs to be done. For example, in September 2006, there were still 100 cities that had not released any data on water pollution. Some local environmental departments had their own websites, but instead of using them to publicise information on the affairs of government, they simply featured brief summaries of the department's responsibilities and selected reports of meetings. It is hard for the public to obtain any information of real value from such websites.

The new departmental regulations will broaden the range and scope of environmental information that is released. Relevant departments must now disclose 17 different categories of information, including all aspects of environmental management. From now on, environmental departments will not be able to get away with simply making public their official procedures and conclusions, they will have to publish large amounts of environmental information. There is a set of rules that departments must abide by; they will no longer be able to pick and choose what they release.

The volume of data that is made public will not only increase, but there will also be strict time limits on the release of information. Moreover, the new regulations stipulate that the public can appeal against departments that break the rules, and even take them to court. In proposing these measures, SEPA has stood up to both internal and external pressures. It is the first department to regulate itself in this way, showing it truly places the public interest and environmental concerns above its own interests. For this, SEPA should be applauded.

The regulations, spurred by the State Council’s decision, allow the public to apply for environmental information from SEPA. Those applying for information will not have to state any reason for their application, but will only have to make clear precisely what they are requesting. The new rules, if they can be effectively implemented, will bring China into line with international standards. They show that the government disclosure of environmental information is a citizen’s right, not a privilege or gift from above. But whether or not the regulations can be effectively implemented will ultimately depend on whether the various environmental departments enter into the spirit of the State Council's regulations on open government information, which make disclosure the rule rather than the exception.

Corporate environmental statistics take on a special significance in rapidly-industrialising China. The new SEPA regulations reprise the demands of the earlier “Cleaner Production Promotion Law”, which requires polluting companies to release data about their activities. Environmental departments will be required to publish lists of companies whose pollution emissions are in breach of set limits. Corporations themselves must release details of the pollutants they emit, how they are emitted, the concentration and total volume of pollutants. They must also disclose details of the construction and operation of pollution-control facilities, and contingency plans for environmental accidents. If these demands can be effectively put into place, they will help the public understand the sources of pollution around them, and take part in monitoring companies’ pollution.

The experiences of a number of developed countries that have faced heavy pollution show that freedom of information can be an effective pollution-control measure. In 1986, when the US government first required companies to release annual reports of their use of hazardous chemicals, media and environmental organisations could expose big polluters for the first time. To combat the effects of negative publicity, corporations began to introduce pollution-control measures. Since then, the harmful emissions of companies in the US has fallen steadily. This particular success story influenced the 2001 European Union decision that required 50,000 companies to disclose information relating to the use of hazardous materials.

Freedom of information can help China urge companies to take responsibility for the environment. Using statistics provided by government departments, we were able to produce a map that shows 5,100 companies breaking environmental regulations. On March 22 this year, 21 environmental organisations joined a call for consumers to make “green choices”, urging them to be aware how some companies’ manufacturing processes can result in excessive pollution, and that such products should only be bought with caution. Public pressure has already resulted in more than 20 multinational and domestic corporations making contact with us to offer explanations for incidents where they have broken regulations. Six of these companies promised to accept third-party inspections within the time limits set out by the regulations. Their hope is that they can show the public they have changed, and work to meet emissions standards.

The world is now realising how lifestyle and development are inseparably linked to the environment. The right to a clean environment is a human right, and taking part in environmental management work is an effective way of safeguarding this right. Members of the public concerned with the environment should actively use SEPA's new regulations, and turn their attention to information disclosed by the government. Armed with this knowledge, they can participate in environmental protection schemes which directly affect their own wellbeing. Freedom of environmental information will lead to a positive interaction between the government and the public, and will be the solution to many of China's environmental problems.

Ma Jun is director of the Institute of Public and Environment Affairs

This article was first published in the Southern Metropolitan Daily.

Homepage photo by Axel Kirch

How participation can help China's ailing environment

Jun Ma — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:22:00 -0500

China’s past 15 years of reform have brought many successes, but the market cannot resolve the country’s ecological crisis – or the social inequalities it exposes. Ma Jun sets out the solution.

During Deng Xiaoping’s famous tour of southern China in 1992, the former leader declared that “development is of overriding importance”, and so revitalised China's reform process. He set China on a path to further development, and helped the country avoid a retreat into rigid ideology. But this same statement has been misinterpreted to mean economic growth should always be China’s highest priority. And as a result, economic growth has been used as a sole indicator of government officials’ performance. Local governments have been encouraged to pursue economic expansion without concern for the consequences.

China has thus been trapped by a resource-hungry, inefficient model of growth – a trap we must now escape. As we enter a new century, the country has shifted ever more towards heavy industry; and while energy and resource consumption has risen sharply, power consumption per unit GDP has fallen as efficiency plummets. Local governments ignore environmental issues and look only to the heavy industry and energy projects that will boost their economies. For example, north China’s cities of Dalian, Tianjin and Qingdao, as well as Hebei and Xinjiang provinces, all of which suffer from water scarcity, have built large petrochemical facilities as new centres of economic growth. South China’s Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangxi, Sichuan and Yunnan are doing the same. This type of growth flies in the face of China’s poverty of resources and environmental precariousness.

In order to attract investment, many local governments have adopted a policy of “pollute now, clean up later.” Development zones and industrial parks are created, where environmental standards can be lowered, and some major polluters have even been classed as “eco-friendly” to prevent the environmental authorities making spot checks. Deng's statement on development has become an excuse for local policy-makers to ignore environmental management. At the start of 2007, China’s State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) announced a further 82 projects, with a total investment value of over 112 billion yuan, had been found in serious breach of the environmental impact assessment law and regulations on the integration of health and safety measures into project design. Many of these projects were located in environments that are already at full capacity, yet the headlong expansion of energy-hungry and polluting industries continues – and causes serious air and water pollution.

Some advocate putting growth first, claiming China’s environmental problems are a normal part of economic development and will be solved in time. But the damage to public health is already grave enough that we may not be able to wait. After a decade and a half of industrialisation and urbanisation, pollution emissions continue to rise. Statistics show that two-thirds of China's urban residents are breathing seriously polluted air, 300 million rural residents are drinking unsafe water, and one in five sources of drinking water for major cities is below standard. Harm on this large a scale cannot continue for long without serious consequences.

Environmental problems also expose great social inequality. A minority of people and places have enjoyed huge benefits from development, while others pay the environmental cost. Social groups that are already vulnerable face the worst pollution and have their resources depleted. They are sometimes even left with a completely uninhabitable environment. This robs them of opportunities for their own development and results in social conflict. Since 2002, the number of complaints to the environmental authorities has increased by 30% every year, reaching 600,000 in 2004; while the number of mass protests caused by environmental issues has grown by 29% every year. These vulnerable groups must achieve equitable treatment – both for the sake of social justice, and because China’s future growth is dependent on its social stability.

In light of this inequity, central government has proposed the “scientific concept of development,” which is designed to change the current GDP-centred model of growth and realise balanced, sustainable development. In 2006, premier Wen Jiabao listed three changes that China needs: to move from a GDP-centered model of growth to one that balances economy and environment and seeks the development of environmental protection; to change from a view of environmental protection as an obstacle to economic growth to the development of economy and environment in tandem; and to institute a range of methods to help resolve environmental problems. Putting these changes into effect will help correct the misinterpretation of Deng's 1992 statement on development.

The “invisible hand” of the market

The “invisible hand” of the market can promote the efficient use of resources if the ownership of resources is clear. But many environmental resources are public property, and it is hard to say who actually owns them. And when they can be used at will, their overexploitation is inevitable.
　　
In 1992, Deng Xiaoping said that economic liberalisation should replace the ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism. A period of market reform followed, with many becoming devotees of liberal economics. But today these market reforms have become the subject of debate. Problems arising from the reform of state assets, healthcare and education have left many with doubts about the process.

Fifteen years of market economics have brought some, limited improvements to China’s environment. But overall, the story has been one of continual harm. In fact, economists have long acknowledged that markets are not enough to protect our shared environment. Economists use publicly-owned pasture as an example. If a farmer buys an extra sheep, the farmer earns an extra sheep’s worth of income. But the additional damage that this sheep causes to the shared pastureland will be borne by all who use it. And competition over who will benefit from the land will result in its over-use; this is known as the “tragedy of the commons.”

This tragedy was played out during China’s market reforms in the 1990s. A 2001 report showed that during that decade, the country’s northern grasslands were 30% to 50% less productive than in the previous decade, marking a sharp fall in the grasslands’ livestock-bearing capacity. The same principle applies to marine over-fishing and the misuse of water resources and forests. When industry emits fumes, effluent and solid waste into public spaces they are, in fact, consuming a shared resource: the environment. Air and water pollution harms public health, but society pays the price – not the polluter. In economic terms, this is called a negative externality.

Some mainstream economists believe that market failures can only be corrected through the further use of markets. They believe that only when the ownership of pastures (or water, or forests) is well-defined, will the costs of their use rise to reflect their scarcity, thus preventing their misuse and promoting environmental improvements. This theory enjoyed a period of popularity, but it is business, not the environment, that has profited from this idea. For example, the price of water rose in many cities, but there has been no visible improvement in the quality of China’s urban water environment. And on top of this, salaries at the water companies continue to rise. These kinds of changes are not easy to find support for.

The failures of the market have led some to suggest a return to the planned economy, where a powerful government would implement environmental protection regulations. In the example of the shared pasture, they believe that rational decisions by each individual farmer would lead to overall inefficiency. But if the government decreed – on threat of punishment – who could use the land, when they could use it and to what extent, the land would be used rationally and tragedy avoided. However, a planned economy is less efficient at allocating resources than a market economy. Even with limited economic development and a low material standard of living, a planned economy is capable of causing serious environmental damage. This was proven by the experiences of the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and China before 1978.

Public participation

The public are the key obstacle to the profit-seeking of the powerful. China must open up public policy-making and give everyone the opportunity for informed participation, allowing the public to find the delicate balance between economic growth and environmental protection in the course of protecting their own rights.

Society already recognises the gravity of the environmental crisis. We now need to decide what is to be done.

Is the theory of scientific development enough to help local governments find a balance? A survey by environmental authorities in Shanxi indicates it is not. Asked if a mayor who achieves economic success at the cost of severe pollution should keep his job, 71% of public respondents answered “no”, but 90% of local government officials said “yes.” These officials have their own interests at heart when making environmental decisions, and we cannot rely on them for balanced policy.

Expert opinions on policy have been sought, in the hope that they will provide disinterested, scientific judgment. But experts too have their own interests, and face pressure from businesses and even government, which threatens their impartiality. Policy-making guided by expert opinions is not the answer.

The turning point we are seeking today came to the west in the late 1960s. Public opposition to environmental degradation spurred western countries to reform environmental management. The public can spur environmental protection, since they are the ones who suffer when it is not in place. They will not choose to endanger their own health and safety, or squander the resources their children will need.

The efficient allocation of resources that a market economy does allow is crucial for a populous but resource-poor country like China. But market reforms will only receive public support when they are combined with principles of good governance. Rises in water prices will only be popular if the public can examine company accounts and see what benefits they will enjoy from the extra cost – and public supervision will ensure the benefits are actually achieved. Public participation also brings the social and environmental outcome of projects to the fore, internalising negative externalities and transforming the cost-benefit analysis of an undertaking to the advantage of projects that save energy and resources rather than those that promote their expansion. This will boost the service industry and ultimately help change the country’s mode of economic growth.

China’s greatest failing in its environmental and resources management is its lack of public involvement. But thankfully, things are changing. In 2003, the environmental impact assessment law was the first Chinese law to demand public participation. In 2004, China’s State Council called for greater transparency of information. In 2006, the central government said that, “Social equality and justice are basic requirements for a harmonious society, and the system must ensure them,” and went on to call for “expansion at all levels of citizens’ orderly participation in politics, ensuring the people’s legal management of national affairs, the economy, culture and social affairs.”

China stands today at a crossroads. Going backwards is no solution, and there is no future in debates about “left” and “right.” Chinese society is experiencing a proliferation of many different interests; the real question is how to prevent any one interest group monopolising the policy-making process for its own gain. In order to achieve this, public decision making must be open, with informed participation by all interest groups. This will allow the public to exercise their environmental rights, and in doing so find the delicate point of balance between growth and the environment. Orderly participation is the meeting of the public interest, governmental and business interests. Respect for the public’s right to participate in environmental decision-making can provide a limited legal and democratic channel that will help reach agreements on difficult issues, allow the market economy to efficiently allocate resources, assist in the achievement of social justice and create harmony between man and nature.

Ma Jun is director of the Institute of Public and Environment Affairs

This is an edited extract of an article first published in Southern Daily