國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
proponents and opponents of the NRP present their arguments, making a public policy into a public debate that spiraled into a “problem” for the central government.
Argument I: Environmental Protection Opponents: Ecological diversity
Dubbed “Grand Canyon of the Orient,”12 Nujiang is where 173 mammal species, 417 species of birds, 59 reptile, 36 kinds of amphibias, 76 fresh water fishes, 31 species of butterflies and insects called home.13 In fact, 6,000 plant species can be found in the Three Parallel Rivers region, where it supports 50% of animal species in China, and 25% of animal species in the world.14 In addition, there are more than 10 unique fish species in the Nujiang, as well as wild grass species that can only be found in the lower reaches of the Nujiang.15
Proponents: Protect Environment from the Villagers
“Local people always used timber to make fire,” said Jie Yi, Nujiang prefecture’s Party Secretary. “If we replace timber with electricity, then we have avoid cutting down more than 400,000 cubic meters of trees each year.”16 Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) scholar He Zhuoxiu claimed that during a tour to the region in April 2005, he saw “up to 1,500 meter high of the mountains were bare,” because
12 Watts, Jonathan. “China’s big hydro wins permission for 21.3GW dam in world heritage site,”
The Guardian, 1 February 2011.
13 Wang, Yongchen. (2005) “Nujiang: rushing freely in the valley,” (Nujiang: zai xiagu zhong ziyou liutang) China Nature, 3. pp. 41‐43.
14 International Rivers Network, 2006.
15 Ibid.
16 Tang, Jianguang. (2004) “Who shall decide the fate of Nujiang?” (Shei lai jueding Nujiang mingyun?) China News Weekly, 18, pp. 16‐38.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the local villagers were cutting down trees to make fire.17 “In fact, only by developing the Nujiang would we have money to implement Ecological Relocation,” said Warton Economic Institute’s director Shen Hanyao. “So as to prevent the vegetation from being damaged by the local villagers’ survival needs.”18
Argument II: World Heritage Site
Opponents: World Heritage Site as Prestige Recognition
Described on the UNESCO website as “epicenter of Chinese biodiversity… one of the richest temperate regions of the world in terms of biodiversity.”19 Opponents of the NRP used the prestigious recognition from the international organization to argue that, it is the interest of China as a nation to preserve the natural environment, and keep the title of World Heritage site. Senior reporter for the China Youth Daily wrote an entry entitled: “World Heritage Three Parallel Rivers under Threat: Hydroelectricity Development Destroys Ecological Environment”
in July 2006, detailing how the region was listed as “World Heritage in Danger”
for three consecutive years since winning the status in 2003.20 Macao Daily also published an editorial, calling on Chinese government to better protect its World Heritage sites.21
17 Sun, Rongfei and Ye, Jing. “Ban on Nujiang Hydroelectricity Gradually Lifted,” (Nujang shuidian jianbei jiejin) Diyi Caijing Daily, 3 June 2005, page‐A06.
18 Ibid.
19 UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (Updated 2010) “Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas.”
20 Zhang, Kejia. “Three Parallel Rivers Regions Listed in the ‘Key Observation and Protection Program’ of the World Heritage List: Hydropower Development Endangers the Environment,”
China Daily Youth, 17 July 2006.
21 China Review News. “Macao Daily: China should improve protection over World Heritage,”
(Aomen Ribao: Zhongguo Ying Jiaqiang Shijie Yichan Baohu) 30 June 2006.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Proponents: Below 2,000 meter Not Included in Protected Area
Just when every domestic and international media headline screamed “World Heritage site to be destroyed!” proponents of the NRP trumped everyone with a crazy wild card, and it turned out to be pre‐meditated, too. The Yunnan office in charge of World Heritage Site Protection claimed, despite Nujiang belonging to the Three Parallel Rivers, hydroelectric development would not harm the protected area. By their account, the portions of Nujiang under protection are above 2000 meters, and the tallest of the planned dams would not even come close. Moreover, this is something they had already considered back in 2002, when they filed the application for World Heritage Status.22 Then in 2005, the local government announced plans to redraw the boundaries of the protected area; UNESCO monitor team believed the purpose of rezoning was to accommodate existing mining operations within the World Heritage Site.23
Argument III: Hydropower
Opponents: Preserve Natural Flow; Big dams are passé
Nujiang, in Chinese means the “Angry River.” The river got its name from the loud noise it makes as the river runs, especially in the summer. However, the construction of the dam would stop the natural flow of the Nujiang, essentially stopping the rapid flow, turning a lively, fierce river that has existed since the ancient times, into a pool of dead water. Leader of the survey team at the Songta dam site told filmmakers of the documentary Silent Nu River:
You will never see the Nujiang again. I don’t think the Nu will flow rapidly after the completion of the cascade 13 dams. As a matter of fact, the Nu will be turned into a lake.
22 Yan, Xueshi. (2004) “Who aroused the waves of Nujiang,” Western Forum, 3, pp. 30‐34.
23 Lopouhkhine, Nikita and Jayakumar, Ramasamy. (2006) “Report of a Joint Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas, China,” UNESCO.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Only a lake, so you won’t see the Nu as it used to be. (The rapids will be gone?) Gone.24
Opponents of NRP highlighted that the era of large dams has come to an end, at least for major western countries. Forestry Economy reporter quoted the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation to say, “Americans’ era of hydropower dams is over.”25 According to the magazine, the U.S. has retired more than 500 dams by 2004, most of them due to concerns over conservation of water and fish resources. In Norway, where 99% of their power generation comes from hydroelectricity, has now banned the building of dams. In addition to European countries such as France, Sweden, and Latvia enacting laws to ban the construction of dams on major rivers. Even developing countries in Africa and Thailand have either canceled plans to build hydropower plants, or make changes to how they handle the dams.26
Proponents: Underdeveloped Water Resources are Wasteful
One of the arguments used to justify the development of Nujiang was essentially, if we did not cultivate the rivers for their capacity to generate power, then it would be a shameful waste. Theoretically, China’s vast rivers altogether contain 676 GW of potential generation capacity, out of which the exploitable potential is 378 GW.27 “Our country’s water resources are abundant, ranked number one in the world,” boasted NDRC’s Vice Chairman Zhang Guobao. “But currently we have only cultivated about 20% of that, comprising only 24% of the country’s
24 Hu, Jie. (2006) Silent Nu River. (DVD) Hong Kong: Visible Record Limited.
25 Sun, Danping. (2004) “Is the dam construction in the sunrise or at the sunset?” Forestry Economy, 1, pp. 22‐26.
26 Ibid.
27 Lako, P. et al. (2003) “Hydropower Development with a Focus on Asia and Western Europe,”
study for ECN Policy Studies and Verbundplan.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
total power generation.”28 Compared to the United States, where the exploitation of hydropower reached 80%; while Brazil and Norway already tapped over 90%
of their hydropower capacity, China only under 25% of cultivation does seem comparatively lower.
Indeed, pro‐dam officials lamented the under‐achievement. In an interview with People’s Daily, China Electricity Council Vice President Sun Yucai reasoned from an even broader scheme of things. From perspective of strategic resource development, Sun argued, as long as China possesses the God‐given advantage of hydropower, not realizing its potential would be a terrible waste. “…We cannot starve ourselves, just because we were worry that we might choke,” Sun used an old Chinese saying (yin ye fei shi) to arrive at his point. “Giving up on hydropower development would mean, regrettably letting the rapid rivers flow away under your nose.”29
Argument IV: Human Factor