文章 Articles

Fog on the Nu River

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.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

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.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous




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?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



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.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



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.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


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.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



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.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Call for true public participation

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

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



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?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



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!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



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.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



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!