Yunnan Provincial Government Stance on Impact Science

Yunnan’s governors have repeatedly come out in support of hydropower development within their province. In the early 2000s, like with the power companies, the emphasis for hydropower development seemed to remain on local, as well as regional, development and integration. In 2002, Xu Rongkai stated it was vital to develop certain reaches of the

  113  

Upper Mekong by “rationally utilizing and protecting local natural resources to

strengthen economic ties among southeast Asian countries” (Xinhua 2002). Governor Xu went on to state that Upper Mekong outflow will remain consistent and unchanged throughout the year because of the cascades reservoir, thus benefitting shipping businesses. Ten years later, Governor Li Jiheng, when describing the Nuozhadu emphasized a slightly different set of benefits from the dam, saying it would increase electricity supply, optimize the energy mix, and help flood control and water use downstream (Xinhua 2012). Again, much like the MWR and the Hydrolancang, an emphasis on environmental impacts seems to have remained relatively constant in the past 20 years, but the tones and emphasis have shifted. Namely, statements have shifted away from a development and regional integration focus, towards a focus on energy security, green energy, and promotion of impact mitigation. In addition, in 2011 Yunnan province awarded Ma Hongqi the “Yunnan National Technological Innovation Award”

because of his significant contributions to Yunnan through his work in hydropower development (Yan and Wu 2012). Over Ma Hongqi’s 40 year career, Yunnan has award Ma Hongqi 12 times for his contributions to science, development, and “raising the stability of the Yunnan people’s government” (Yan and Wu 2012). While this is hardly proof of a definite connection, it seems likely that these awards function as a tacit endorsement of Ma Hongqi’s views towards hydropower development in the Yunnan provincial government.

2.5 Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)

The MOFA decidedly holds very little sway over the decision-making processes behind hydropower development decisions on the Upper Mekong. However, their

statements in dealing with the MRC and Southeast Asian governments is indicative of not only the central and Yunnan’s provincial government’s stance towards the cascade’s impacts, but also what scientific information the government body is using to frame, and perhaps understand, hydropower development.

In 2010, Song Tao, the vice foreign minister, told the prime ministers of Southeast Asian countries that as the Upper Mekong was only responsible for 13.5% of the total

  114  

output at the mouth of the Mekong, and thus the no-water-use reservoirs already built had no impact downstream. Again, like the MWR and hydropower companies, the foreign minister cited a commissioned study by China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower, the AIRC, and the Dillon Consulting Canada Inc. that concluded that the hydropower development on the Upper Mekong “do no consume water, and have scarce effect on the water volume flowing across the border” (China Daily 2010). This study seems consistent with the most of the science regarding existing impacts, in that of the impacts of the Manwan, Dachaoshan, and Jinghong dams on hydrology are either unnoticeable on larger timescales, or relatively insignificant. However, it ignores the potential impact of the now Xiaowan reservoir that is currently in the process of filling.

These various government bureaus seem to base, at least publicly, their claims of limited impacts on a scientific study only examining the impacts of the cascade before the completion of its largest dams, the Xiaowan and Nuozhadu.

Other statements from MOFA focus on other developmental incentives, and are relatively consistent with other government statements on the subject. More recent statements seem to have followed along with the actors mentioned above, as seen with MOFA spokesperson, Hun Sen, emphasizing the recent development of the importance of mitigating negative dam impacts through building fish habitats, rare animal and fauna sanctuaries and so on (Hui 2010a). In addition, a number of various statements focus on using water resources as a means using low-impact renewable energy of hydropower to drive development, eradicate poverty, and deal with climate change for China and the GMS (Hui 2010a, 2010b; CED 2010; Son 2010). A number of MOFA officials have stated China’s opening up of hydrological flow information, especially in light of the 2010 drought, stating the release of relevant flood information since 2002, and even the release of 5 million cubic meters of water in 2010 to help with dam impacts, a claim substantiated by the MWR (Son 2010).

  115  

2.6. The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP)

2.6.1 The MEP’s role in the Decision-Making Process

With its rise to ministry status in 2008, the MEP (formerly the State Environmental Protection Bureau, SEPA), has gained more power relative to dam construction within China. The issue most often emphasized by the MEP has been an adherence to environmental impact assessments (EIAs). In 2009, the MEP ordered all work on Huaneng’s hydropower sites to cease because of a failure of Huaneng to secure environmental impact assessment approvals for the Ludila Hydroelectric Project in the upper reaches of the Yangtze (Si 2011).

On the national level the MEP holds more power over larger development projects, and therefore theoretically holds some more sway over the cascade’s

construction process. Below the provincial level, the environmental protection bureaus (EPBs) are relatively weak, holding the title of “huanbao ju” (環保局) at the prefecture and county levels, and “huanbao yuan” (環保元) at the township and village levels (Mertha 2008). In Yunnan, the EPB was a second-tier bureau until 1993, when it was promoted to first-tier bureau status at the same time that SEPA in Beijing became a ministry-level as a “zong ju” or “bu ji bumen”. This, however, does not necessarily equal the same level of influence because “as mentioned earlier, some bureaus are more equal than others” (Mertha 2008). Provincial-level EPBs are first-tier bureaus, and so

technically on equal footing with the MWR. However, provincial-level administrative organs are divided into the following subtypes: administrative offices, directly

administered special offices, directly administered offices, longstanding offices for coordinating and discussing official business, managing offices/units, and the more powerful organizational units.

The EPBs are directly administered offices, while the MWR is an organizational unit. Therefore while both have formal administrative rank, the MWR is considered more influential and possesses the ability to edge out the EPB (Mertha 2008). EPBs historically have held a secondary position relative to more powerful, and frequently development

  116  

oriented bureaus. At the prefecture level, EPBs were separated out of the construction bureaus into separate independent units in 1997, but still shared the same offices frequently with the construction bureau. Despite a efforts to centralize the bureaucracy, the provincial-level EPB still receives personnel and budgetary resources from the provinicial-level government, “which has sole authority relations over the provincial-level EPB” (Mertha 2008). Promoted to ministry status in 2008, the MEP has struggled to flex its bureaucratic muscles when dealing with more powerful entities like the NDRC.

As will be seen in chapter 4, with the advent of the EIA Law in 2003, the then SEPA used its authority to stop a number of non-compliant development projects, which in turn may have shifted the dialogue surrounding hydropower development.

2.6.2 The MEP’s Stance on Impact Science

Like the NDRC, the MEP and is position towards downstream impact science is perhaps best understood through policy-actions, rather than limited government statements on specific scientific claims. As such, the MEP’s stance will be discussed further in chapter 4.

2.7. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Epistemic Communities (ECs)

2.7.1 The Asian International Rivers Center (AIRC)

Founded in 2000 and based out of the Yunnan University, the AIRC has

published widely on the Lancang and the dam cascade, offering a substantive amount of information on the basin. The director, Professor He Daming, trained originally as a hydraulic and hydroelectric engineer, and later completed advanced degrees in geography and environmental science. He worked as an engineer at the Kunming Institute of

Hydropower Survey and Design during the early-1980s while the Manwan dam was designed (Magee 2006a). Spending most of the 1990s at the Yunnan Institute of

Geography in Kunming, He and his colleagues published “some of the earliest and most comprehensive physical geographic work on the Lancang watershed” (Magee 2006a).

  117  

Indeed, in 1995, a full issue of the Yunnan Geographic Environment Research journal and a subsequent issue of Acta Geographica Sinica in 1999, detailed this research.

The AIRC has published over the years a fairly nuanced and wide-ranging set of scientific articles regarding the dams on the Lancang-Mekong and its impacts.

Frequently, as is true with most any scientific article, they extrapolated little from what could be parsed out from the data. While acknowledging some impacts from current dams, the articles tend to find that the impact of the (at least currently existing dams) cascade extend little beyond China. This research found little written criticism of the dams out of the AIRC, and is supported as Magee (2006) describes:

“With regard to the Lancang, neither He nor his colleagues, to my knowledge, have ever directly opposed the dams in writing. They have, however, based on many years of research and He’s own background as a hydropower engineer, been publicly critical of the ecological and social impacts of hasty, disorderly hydropower development. For that have gained a degree of notoriety, especially He” (Magee 2006a, 234).

That said, however, in two different interviews with researchers at AIRC⁶, both described both He Daming and the researchers at the AIRC as truly committed to just putting out good science. Their goals, as Fu Kaidao put it, are not advocacy, but rather the most accurate scientific understanding of what is happening in the Upper and Lower Mekong.

They are essentially Yunnan’s most preeminent, oldest, and cautious domestic epistemic community researching the Upper Mekong. As will be discussed in chapter four, this seems to have put the center in a prime position to have influence over the discourse surrounding hydropower development on the Lancang and on-going management and mitigation techniques.

Much of the scientific position of the AIRC and He Daming was covered in chapter 2 in the various conclusions made by scientists on downstream dam impacts. To summarize, they typically fall along similar lines as much of the science stating that a complete cascade will have drastic downstream impacts, both beneficial and negative.

6  Interviews  01:  Fu  Kaidao,  senior  researcher  at  the  AIRC;  Interviews  05:  AIRC   researcher;  Interview  06:  AIRC  researcher  

  118  

The important distinction is that it is suggested in some of their studies that careful

mitigation of the potential downstream impacts will limit negative impacts. In addition, in the early 2000s He Daming has stated that a decrease of 35% of sediment flow from a completed Xiaowan will be beneficial to navigation and flood water expulsion, while also stating that due to the coarse, heavy silt of the Upper Mekong, its silt does not reach too far south (Xinhua 2002b, 2002c). As such, reduced sediment flow will have limited impacts on agriculture in the Mekong Delta (Vietnam) (Xinhua 2002c). This seems to support the notion of ECs making the best determination given the science at the time, while placing an emphasis on the benefits of the cascade. This is discussed at length in chapter 4.

2.7.2 Green Watershed (GW)

Founded in 2002 by Yu Xiaogang, at the time an anthropologist at the Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences. In 2001, Yu took part in a study with Professor He Daming on the resettlement outcomes for residents forced to relocated after the construction of the Manwan dam (Magee 2006a). Although previously never involved in research or

advocacy in relation to dams, he’s research into Manwan “convinced him that large dams, poorly built, could have immediate and long-lasting negative impacts on

individuals whose livelihoods depended on the bottomlands that are frequently flooded by dams” (Magee 2006a, 225). The problems derived from the Manwan dam’s rather sloppy construction in terms of socioeconomic and biophysical impacts, thus galvanizing the organization to use unorthodox means to advocate for the plight of villagers displaced by large dams in Yunnan.

GW’s role in the decision-making process relies heavily on the success or failure of its advocacy. As will be discussed in chapter 4, during the mid-2000s under Wen Jiabao, GW achieved a relatively significant impact in influencing public opinion, and arguably some policy. However, these avant-guard techniques as of late seem to have landed Yu on the “black list”, whereby researchers interviewing him will quickly be

  119  

approached by police⁷. During one researchers research in China, he was warned that if he wanted to continue his research, he should avoid contacting Yu Xiaogang again. This researcher went on to state that Yu now conducts relatively “quiet” work on the dams above the current cascade of dams in Tibet⁸.

2.7.3 International Rivers Network (IRN)

The IRN is an international organization that has conducted extensive research into the downstream impacts of the lancang cascade. While excluded from the decision making process, IRN is an advocacy organization that frequently uses the both investigative techniques to exposes Hydrolancang’s illegal construction of dams on the upper Mekong before approval from the NDRC and MEP. In addition, the IRN frequently cites scientific findings that show the negative impacts downstream on water and sediment flow, and ecological impacts (Yan 2012; Bosshard 2014). While having decidedly very little influence over the decision-making process, the IRN utilitzes more of the international science seen in chapter two that suggests current and significant future negative

downstream impacts (IRN 2002a, 2002b). In addition, through their own field work they have shown Huaneng and Hydrolancang’s continued construction and development of the Upper Lancang (in Tibet) in more recent years, despite not yet conducting and EIA and thus without getting approval from the central government (Yan 2012; Bosshard 2014)⁹.

3. Conclusion

This chapter sought to discover and elaborate upon the competing policy streams with which the impact science policy stream interacts with in China’s domestic politics.

While the research does not offer an exhaustive understanding of the other policy streams and nor all the nuances of their interactions and influence upon development policy, I am confident that the above research offers a good understand of the primary drivers behind                                                                                                                

7  Interview  05:  AIRC  researcher  

8  Interview  05:  AIRC  researcher  

9  Interview  04:  Katy  Yan,  International  Rivers  Network,  Upper  Mekong  dam   researcher  

  120  

hydropower development in Yunnan, China. I believe this chapter also successfully answered the questions of what counts as water science? Who decides what water science is, and who decides how much it counts in the decision making process?

3.1 What counts as water science and who decides what water science is?

In my research I found a distinct separation in the scientific reasons given by government actors, particularly Hydrolancang and the MWR, and science given by actors largely outside of decision-making circles, i.e. the IRN, other Chinese scholars, NGOs, and to a lesser extent the AIRC (for the purposes of this research, it is considered an epistemic community). In the early to mid-2000’s, the emphasis by Ma Hongqi, at the time the head engineer of Hydrolancang and head of the Chinese Academy of Engineers, simply stated that given a project review of downstream impacts, the dams on the

Lancang would have either no, or very limited, impact downstream, as the Yunnan component of total Mekong outflow only accounts for 13.5% (China Daily 2002; China Daily 2003). Specifically in regards to the Xiaowan project, Ma Hongqi stated, “we concluded that the Xiaowan project will have limited impacts on the lower reaches of the river. Instead, the dam project will help with irrigation and navigation in the lower reaches” (Chen 2002). He went on to claim that the Xiaowan will increase dry season flows by 39.7% (Chen 2002). Ma focused on the developmental benefits to Yunnan and the region, and to navigation, irrigation, and flood and drought control. While remaining relatively consistent in their claims, more recently both the MWR and Hydrolancang have stated that through “scientific regulation”, the cascade will increase long-term average the dry season flow by 70%, and decrease the wet season by 30% (Gao and Zhong 2014). In other statements, Ma Hongqi, then a senior consultant to Hydrolancang and head of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, stated that the Nuozhadu (to be fully complete later this year) will also have fundamentally no impact as China’s contribution to the Lower Mekong is relatively small (China News 2011; Huanqiu 2012; Wang 2013;

Zhang 2012a; Zhang 2012b). Again, like the claims surrounding the Xiaowan and the rest of the cascade, the Nuozhadu brings about the ability to handle droughts and floods categorized to occur only once in 20 or even as high as 100 years (Hexun 2012).

  121  

By 2012, the dominant beneficial claims surrounding the cascade center around energy saving and lower emissions – frequently equated with environmental protection (Zhang 2012a; Zhang 2012b), improved navigation (Hexun 2012), and flood and drought control (China news 2011; Hexun 2012). Nuozhadu alone is claimed to save 9.6 million tons of standard coal a year, along with a reduction of 18.8 million tons of CO²/yr (Xinhua 2012). In addition, Xiaowan is claimed to likely save 10 million tons of CO² annually (China News 2009). While these are significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, some scholars cast doubt on just how much of an impact these reductions will have. The potential protein loses in Mekong fisheries may force Laos and Cambodia to invest in industrial, carbon intensive livestock raising, and as such China’s carbon footprint “will simply have been sent downstream” (Eyler 2013).

Figure 10: Shifts in what policy streams/frameworks were emphasized from the early 2000s to present among decision-makers (Hydrolancang, MWR, NDRC, and Yunnan provincial government)

Hydrolancang, the MWR, and MOFA repeatedly since 2010 cited a study conducted by the China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower, the AIRC, and Dillon Consulting Canada Inc. (Liu and Guan 2011; China Daily 2010). However, this study, among other commonly cited studies only looked into the historical and potential impacts of the Manwan, Dachaoshan, and Jinghong reservoirs on hydrological flow, ignores the two largest mega-dams on the Upper Mekong, the Xiaowan and Nuozhadu.

This suggests a few possibilities. First, this could be willful obfuscation of the scientific consensus. By promoting a study that suggests low impacts downstream, the government

1. Regional  integration   2. Poverty  alleviation   3. Improved  irrigation    

&  navigation  

4. Flood/drought  control   Early-­2000s  

1. Lower  CO²  emissions   2. Energy  saving  

3. Flood/drought   control  

4. Poverty  Alleviation   Late-­2000s  to  present  

  122  

holds better position in regards to addressing concerns of downstream impacts, especially during the 2010 drought, when this study first began to be cited. Officials repeatedly referred to the “3 reservoirs on the Lancang” during this time, ignoring the Xiaowan with a reservoir five times greater than the Manwan, Dachaoshan, and Jinghong reservoirs combined (Hui 2010a). Had the reservoir cut the river off completely to impound the reservoir, it would still take four and a half months to fill from empty, while the Mekong in a dry spell with half its normal flow volume could be restored to full for 10 months,

“you could call that quite a substantial ‘impact’” (Hui 2010a).

In addition, Xinhua reported a foreign study through a “scientific and reasonable study” that the cascade on the whole does not cause unusual water level fluctuations, although without naming the study (Yang 2011). While a majority of the science on the Manwan, Dachaoshan, and Jinghong dams suggests relatively low impacts on

hydrological levels (indistinguishable from the norm on weekly to monthly timescales), ignoring the current and future impacts of the Xiaowan and Nuozhadu seems to

intentionally misguide. Qin Hui, a Chinese academic, derided this apparent muddling of

intentionally misguide. Qin Hui, a Chinese academic, derided this apparent muddling of