中国与世界,环境危机大家谈

china and the world discuss the environment

  • linkedin group
  • sini weibo
  • facebook
  • twitter
envelope

注册订阅每周免费邮件
Sign up for email updates


文章 Articles

Fog on the Nu River

Liu Jianqiang

Readinch

Last year, China enshrined in law the public's right to participate in decision-making on large construction projects. Liu Jianqiang reports on the progress of these measures at a controversial dam in the country’s southwest.

article image
 

The proposed construction of a dam and hydroelectric plant on southwest China’s Nu River has sparked one of the country’s most heated environmental debates. But the matter has also become shrouded in a cloud of obfuscation and untruth; it is the least transparent of all China’s large-scale projects.

The controversy at the Nu River may have an impact on the lives of tens of thousands of people, on a large number of institutions – and also on China’s national and wider societal interests. It seems to reflect the difficulties and hopes of modern China’s development. I became concerned about the Nu River, and on New Year’s Day, 2006, I visited the region, hoping to find the underlying truth. I brought with me photographs of two people who were taken by officials to a meeting in Beijing about the proposed dam. Described as “representatives” of the half million people in the area, they supported the dam. “We want the power plant to be built; we want it to improve our lives,” they had said.

Before this statement, only the hydroelectric company, government officials and a few academics had spoken on behalf of the locals. Some were so sympathetic they shed tears – or at least alleged they did. A common claim was: “When I saw how poor the people of the Nu River are, I cried.” On the locals’ behalf, they concluded that the people must be saved from their misery – and the dam must be built.

However, it was never explained how they were authorised to represent the local people. Moreover, the dam’s supporters never mentioned that they themselves would benefit most from the dam. On the contrary, they portrayed themselves as responsible for relieving the locals’ poverty and spurring the area’s development. Of course, we must welcome the selfless altruism of corporate social responsibility; but we also have the right to ask that the results of this “social responsibility” are made public.

But they have not been. And judging by reports that continue to emerge about the plight of those relocated by other large dam projects, it may be awkward for them to do so, since their class solidarity could be called into question. If the rights of local people are to be protected, they must stand up and speak for themselves; a robust and democratic decision-making process is essential.

In the end, the local government allowed these two local people to be heard in Beijing. It was a step forward. The spokespeople were both in favour of the dam, but at least they represented the people from the region. However, I still had some doubts: all the other attendees at the meeting were named, except these two representatives. Not even their village or their county was publicised. They were known merely as “representatives of Nu River residents.” Why the mystery?

Fortunately, I was able to obtain photographs of them at the meeting. Perhaps I would be able to find them among the 500,000 people who live around the Nu River, I thought. I wanted to ask them if they really believed what they had said. And if so, could they really speak for half a million others?

I followed the Nu River valley, searching for them village by village, but I could not find them. I did, however, find that of 30 locals I interviewed across several counties, 80% had no idea they were to be rescued by a hydroelectric company. The few that did know were all administrative workers, public servants or village cadres. And they felt no gratitude towards the hydroelectric company or the local government. One female public servant I spoke to said that the dam would not improve things, and that many would not be adequately resettled. It proved the falsity of claims about unanimous local support. The local government may want the dam, but the locals themselves do not. In fact, the government officials want the extra income. “They hope the dam will increase government income and earn them promotions,” said the public servant.

A hydroelectric company executive at the consultation meeting in Beijing claimed that “democratic decision-making principles will be implemented from start to finish.”

But the locals had a different story to tell. A village cadre told me that in October 2004, the locals held a meeting to discuss compensation payments for relocation. The township head turned up and accused the villagers of holding an illegal meeting, threatened objectors with jail and demanded that they should not obstruct the project or speak to the media.

The village cadre went on to say that people were most worried that land compensation would be inadequate and their children would be left without a living; without their land they have no way to survive. Measurements on which to base these compensation payments had been taken recently, but the ridges between fields and rocky areas were not included. The locals were angry, but were scared they would be jailed if they complained.

This brings to mind the hydroelectric company’s comments about democratic decision-making. But let’s move on, and keep looking for those two nameless representatives. Maybe they got to exercise their democratic rights, after all.

At last, someone recognised the faces in the photograph: I had finally found them. One was a village party secretary named Ou, who told me that the locals were poor, earning only a few hundred yuan every year, and that they supported the dam. But I spoke to several households in the village, and none agreed with him. I also noticed he was clutching a new Nokia mobile phone worth 3,600 yuan (around US$465) – the combined annual income of four local residents.

I asked him what the locals would do after they lost their land. He waved his hand and said “tourism.”

When I suggested that the dam would destroy exactly what tourists come to see, and that the manager of one important local tourism company had described the dam as a severe blow to the industry, he explained that the 12 dams themselves would be a tourist attraction.

Later, I found the other “representative”, a village cadre named Ji. She had something different to say from what she had expressed at the meeting. “The dam cannot be allowed to hurt the interests of the locals,” said Ji. “It's going to flood our fields, and the state needs to provide appropriate compensation. I wanted to say this at the meeting, but there wasn't enough time. I was just about to speak and the chairman cut me off.”

Her friend – an ethnic Lisu – was sitting alongside us. “I've just never seen how it's meant to make us rich,” he said. “The money from the dam goes to the country, to the boss. Where do we get rich? I've never made sense of it. There was a township meeting about relocation, and I asked there. The township leaders couldn't answer. Even a deputy-secretary admitted it was a problem. Seems they don't know either.”

I asked the “representative” what she thought.  “He's right,” she said, laughing.

I did not find all the answers on this trip; I am still far from the truth about the Nu River. But at least I now know how thick the fog of untruth is.

 

Liu Jianqiang is a Beijing-based investigative journalist.

评论 comments

14

评论 comments

中文

EN

嗨 Hi Guest user

退出 Logout /


发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文 最大字符 1200

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200

排序 Sort By:

中国的法律约束力如何?

如果中国有强的环境法制,比如说来避免(控制)在敏感地带建大坝等,是不是情况就不一样,也更容易解决?

如果各层政府都允许公众的参与,那么这些自私的官员就很少有腐败的机会了?

what about the lawforce?

If China has a strong law force in regarding to the Environment issue, such as the development controls for building a dam in sensitive area, would the situation be easier?
If all levels of Government allows more public participation, would those selfish officer have less chance to be corrupted?


中国的悲哀

怒江的事情争议好几年了,依然还是要上马。有正义感的记者和有良心的知识分子以及数不清的人参与了怒江保卫战,但是还是斗不过利益集团,实为可悲的事情。中国难道不能保留一片净土么?现在是需要中央政府站出来说话的时候了。

China's sorrow

Whether to build a dam on Nujiang River has been debated for years, but unfortunately in the end the project will proceed.

Journalists advocating justice, intellectuals of conscience and other numerous people have joined in the Nujiang protection efforts.

But all these joint efforts still cannot compete with interest groups. What a woeful situation it is!

Is it impossible for China to keep some pure areas intact? It is the time for the Chinese Central Government to have the final say and correct the mistakes.


开发水电的最大受益者是电力公司

清华大学教授李楯接受媒体采访时说:“水坝建设,获利的首先是电力部门,其次是地方政府。在现行体制下,老百姓很难参与到这个利益分配过程中去。”
事实上中央政府也没什么好处,电力公司和地方政府差不多都瓜分完了。

The greatest beneficiaries of hydroelectric development are power companies

Professor Li Dun of Qinghua University said in an interview with the media: "When dams are constructed for hydroelectric power, the local government agencies responsible for electric power are the primary beneficiaries, while the government is next in line. Under the current system, the public thus finds it very difficult to participate in the process of benefit distribution." In fact, the Central Government does not stand to benefit either. Power companies and local governments will split the benefits almost only amongst themselves.


真的信赖你们

贵网站太迷信戈尔(Al Gore)的说法。支持戈尔,岂不使贵网站失去信用呢?网站应当立即关闭。

Trust you lot...

...to be sucked in by Al Gore. Rather discredits your site, no? You should close down immediately.


怒江争议过去了?

怒江争议热闹了一阵子,后来好像就消停了,很多人都以为停建了呢,原来照建不误。水电公司有钱,环保人士只有热情,终归鸡蛋碰不过石头。

Has the debate over the Nu River dam subsided?

The debate over the Nu River dam caused a momentary stir, but it subsequently died down. Many people thought that construction had been ceased, when in fact the building plans are being carried out without fail. Hydroelectric companies have money, while environmentalists only have their enthusiasm. Ultimately, a chicken's egg can't collide with a rock.


呼唤真正的公众参与

公众参与不能做秀!不然就比不参与还要糟糕!

Call for true public participation

Public participation is not a panacea. But having none at all would be even worse.


对“真的信赖你们”的回复

我不太明白戈尔与本文有什么关系。再说,为什么要谈到中外对话的信用?中外对话赢得了奥斯卡奖吗?

Re: Comment 4

I'm not sure what Al Gore has to do with this piece? Or how chinadialogue's credit is brought into play - did they win an Oscar?


对评论4和评论7的回复(伪善和愤世嫉俗)

当然,戈尔跟怒江一点关系也没有。但是既然对伪善的争辩已经开始,本人倒愿意在此指出马克·里那斯在本周《卫报》上针对这个问题的切实有力的观点及论证。
里那斯写道:“每当一个贴着绿色标签的英雄成为众矢之的时候,我们每个人都感到对那些政治家、领导者,以及整个社会的愤世嫉俗。这种态度助长自私自利的情绪并使人们满足于现状,所以说愤世嫉俗者并不能使事情向好的方向发展,他们只是进一步的否定伪善者:‘你这个伪君子,为什么我要按你说的去做?’或者更加消极:‘连你自己都不能做的事情我又如何去做?’最后的结果无非就是把问题束之高阁,情况没有任何改变。而温室气体的排放却依旧日益高速增长。……在我看来,戈尔在呼吁大众关注气候变化这方面做得很对。他所带来的政治影响是相当深远的,并且也是人们至今对气候变化持乐观态度的为数不多的原因之一。如果他只是天天在田纳西老家里穿着有机羊毛的套头衫,关了灯和暖气,自我感觉良好的话,我们并不会像现在这样清醒地意识到问题的严重性。所以说做个纯粹主义者也许让人觉得心安理得,但是却未必能改变什么。“
愤世嫉俗和鄙陋的诽谤注定不能对我们所面对的环境危机有什么帮助。正如里那斯所说的,“没有哪个愤世嫉俗的人能够让事情向好的方向发展。“
不过至少“中外对话”正在积极地做着努力。希望它再接再厉,并且能得到更多人的支持!

Re: comments 4 & 7 (hypocrisy and cynicism)

Of course, Al Gore is irrelevant to the Nu River article. But since a line of argument about hypocrisy has begun, I'd like to point out the cogent, well-argued piece by climate-change author Mark Lynas -- in London's Guardian newspaper this week -- regarding the recent attacks on Mr Gore.
Lynas wrote:
'Each time a potential "green hero" is shot down in flames, we all feel that little bit more cynical about politicians, leaders and society in general. Cynicism breeds selfishness and a de facto acceptance of the status quo - no cynic ever led a movement for positive change. In this sense, charging someone with hypocrisy serves to reinforce denial: "You're a hypocrite, so why should I do what you tell me?" Or the more disempowering: "If even you can't do it, how can I?" The practical outcome is that lightbulbs go unchanged, lofts uninsulated and bicycles unridden. And greenhouse gas emissions continue to soar. [...] In my view, Gore was right to rack up thousands of air miles in his campaign to raise awareness of climate change: the political shift he has helped to engineer, particularly in America, has been truly profound, and is one of the few real causes for optimism on climate change today. If he had stayed at home in Tennessee with the lights and heating off, wearing organic woolly jumpers and feeling generally good about himself, we would have a lot further to travel in terms of awareness-raising than we do now. Being a purist may be comforting, but it is unlikely to change the world.'
Cynicism -- and petty sniping -- definitely isn't helpful in light of the global environmental crisis we face. As Lynas says, "no cynic ever led a movement for positive change".
One of those positive efforts is chinadialogue. Long may it thrive!


这合适吗?

为什么批准翻译评论4?这跟气候变化毫无关系,只能造成观点混乱。

Moderation ?

Why was Comment #4 approved and translated ? It only brings confusion to this agrument: this article doesn't make one mention of climate change.


知识分子不可被收买

知识分子的价值就在于讲真话,但在怒江问题上,有些学者明显被水电公司收买,说的些牵强附会的道理真让人遗憾!

Intellectuals should not be bought off

Intellectuals should safeguard their status by telling the truth. But on the Nu River dam issue, some scholars are obviously bought off by water power companies. They thus compromise their reports. This is a great pity!


← Previous 1

合作伙伴 Partners

项目 Projects