4. From Hydropower Construction to National Park Creation: Changing Pathways of the Nu River

The Nu River, also known as the Upper Salween, is one of China’s sixteen major cross-border rivers. It originates from the Tibetan Plateau, and runs through Yunnan Province of China, before entering Myanmar. Well-known for its rich biodiversity, the Nu River and surrounding areas are home to more than 4,300 plants species, of which 24 species fall under the first and second national protection classes (Nu Prefecture Forestry Bureau 2015). In acknowledgement of this, the Nu River is one of the “Three Parallel Rivers” (along with the Lancang and Jinsha Rivers), which is the largest World Heritage site in China. Furthermore, many ethnic groups live within the basin, including Lisu, Nu, Dulong, Bai, Pumi, Yi, Tibetan, Naxi and Jingpo.

There has been considerable debate in China over the past two decades about the fate of the Nu River. In contrast to most major rivers in China, the mainstream of the Nu River is largely free flowing, with the exception of two hydropower dams near the headwater. Yet, over the past two decades, many of its tributaries have been dammed for hydropower and irrigation (Ptak 2014). This chapter explores the range of visions for the Nu River and the extent to which they have materialized through exploring five ‘pathways’, namely (see also Yu et al. 2018):

The method adopted in this chapter is that of development pathway research. Within this approach, development pathways are defined as “… the particular directions in which interacting social, technological and environmental systems co-evolve over time” (Leach et al. 2010: xiv). The study of a development pathway entails analyzing how different actors’ visions for the basin are being formulated and acted upon, including the narratives produced, and the decision-making processes invoked. Overall, the analysis of pathways is a useful heuristic tool to render visible options that exist – or that are proposed – and hence to evaluate their implications for a range of policy goals for the future.

We reviewed relevant policies, legal frameworks and operational guidelines relating to the Nu River Basin’s development and environmental protection at the national and local levels (see also Yu et al. 2018 for further details). We also conducted institutional and actor analysis, drawing on an extensive literature review, as well as in-depth interviews with government officers, experts and environmental NGO staff (Table 4.1: In-depth interviews conducted). Interviews were also conducted in two communities in Nu Prefecture and the Baoshan Area. Drawing on their role as leaders in the Nu River protection campaign, Green Watershed also contributed their firsthand experience to inform this research.

Government plans for the Nu River have been defined by several critical turning points. From the initiation of plans for large hydropower dam construction in the late 1990s to the decision to suspend these plans in February 2004 by Premier Wen Jiabao (2003–2013), the local government has played a key role. Overall, key elements of the local government have maintained a commitment to hydropower construction in collaboration with project developers, and this obstructed the exploration of other options for the basin over the 2000s. However, in November 2012, the central government upgraded its “Ecological Civilization” policy to become a national strategy, and proposed the establishment of a national park system. Shortly afterwards, the Yunnan Provincial government and Nu Prefecture government began to advance new plans accordingly.

More broadly, China has witnessed significant policy reorientation. In 1978, China halted its “class struggle as core” approach, and reoriented towards a measured policy of “opening up” the country to private investment. Over the following three decades, economic growth was a central priority, and socio-economic development of overriding importance, with the goal of meeting the growing material and cultural needs of China’s population. However, the pursuit of rapid economic growth led to a long-term pattern of development that could be described as high-input, high-pollution, high-energy-consumption and low-efficiency, and which did not attain a broad-based sustainable mode of development. This not only resulted in a series of social problems, such as an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, capital rent-seeking and political corruption, but also led to environment degradation, including consumption of vast amounts of natural resources, serious pollution and the degradation of ecological systems.

For several reasons, these challenges urged China’s leaders to redirect the country’s strategy of economic development towards achieving a more comprehensive form of development of the economy, society and the environment. Firstly, China has a low amount of natural resources per capita, and the growing volume of resource utilization together with low energy efficiency has gradually led to an economic growth bottleneck (partly-addressed by China’s growing resource imports). Secondly, with living standards improved for many, there is a growing demand for a better environment. Rising public unrest trigged by environmental pollution has raised questions about government accountability and challenged social stability. Thirdly, China’s economic growth has been paralleled by a growing geopolitical role, in which China is playing a more important role in international cooperation and global governance. China is seeking to conform with green low-carbon development trends that are emerging globally, and wishes to promote its competitiveness and influence in the international arena (Ronghua 2012).

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) gradually accepted the concept of sustainability, with the 15th Party Congress held in 1997 adopting a strategy of sustainable development and the 16th Party Congress held in 2002 establishing principles of resource savings and an environment-friendly society. The 17th Party Congress held in 2007 recognized a good ecological environment as one of the important requirements for achieving a well-off society by 2020. However, even as the concept of sustainability has gradually gained acceptance, economic development still remains the first priority. Environmental protection policies are subordinate to (economic) development needs, and thus the old development model has not fundamentally changed.

The 18th Party Congress held in 2012, however, appears to have been a turning point. The report that came out of the meeting included a whole chapter highlighting the construction of an “Ecological Civilization” for the people’s wellbeing, and solidified a long-term national development strategy towards attaining it. This meeting adopted the revised Constitution of the CPC, declaring: “The CPC will lead the Chinese people to build a socialist ecological civilization.” In the fifth plenary session of the Congress, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping, put forward five new development concepts: innovation, coordination, greening, openness and sharing. Ecological Civilization and the five development concepts formed the development guidelines for China’s 13th five-year plan (2016–2020).

In the late 1990s, Premier Li Peng’s (1988–1998) retirement left behind an economic bubble in China’s coastal areas and a legacy of underdevelopment in the Western regions. The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 resulted in the stagnation of China’s foreign trade and the shrinking of its export-oriented economy, while major flooding in 1998 also harmed the economy. Premier Zhu Rongji (1998–2003) led the new State Council to address these challenges by expanding domestic demand to create an economic “soft landing” (Yonglin 2006). The country’s development pattern shifted from an export-oriented economy alone to one that also prioritized investment in undeveloped regions of Western China.

In 2000, the central government launched the Western Region Development Strategy (2000–2020). Within this approach, the “West East Power Transfer” (WEPT) strategy supported large dam construction in Southwest China to transmit electricity to the industrialized Southeastern seaboard where power demand was high and resources to produce electricity limited (Magee 2006; Dore et al. 2007). The WEPT strategy was favored by China’s leaders because designing plans for the development of China’s western water resources allowed the WEPT strategy to promise to not only meet the electricity demands of Eastern China, but also stimulate economic growth in the West of the country (Peiyan 2010). In this policy discourse, hydropower was considered a clean and renewable energy. Yet, Southwest China, where the projects were to be built, is also the area with China’s best-preserved ecology, most abundant biodiversity, and largest ethnic minority population, thus raising the risk of ecological and social harms due to the projects.

Chinese environmental NGOs have played an important role in protecting the Nu River from large dam development, and are one of the major forces pushing for greater access to information and public participation. Key organizations have included: Green Watershed (GW), Green Earth Volunteers, and Friends of Nature. Pursuing existing legal means to mobilize public attention and support, these NGOs formed alliances through different networks to influence hydropower decision-making. They also drew on scientific assessments from renowned experts and field investigations to present the potential social, environmental and geological problems posed by the Nu River hydropower development plans to top-level officials to urge them to make informed decisions.

As discussed above, the hydropower development pathway in Yunnan Province, including on the Nu River, was fundamentally shaped by the WEPT strategy. At the same time, China’s electricity industry was undergoing profound reform. As noted above, in 2002, the state monopoly of the State Power Corporation was restructured into two state monopoly grid companies, and five state-owned power generation companies (the “Big Five”) that were intended to compete alongside private and other state-owned investors in power generation. Wang/Chen (2012) highlight the slow pace of market-orientated reform after the initial creation of the “Big Five,” suggesting that in contrast to the earlier monopoly in China, a “relative monopoly” now exists (see also Ngan 2010). Thus, these large state-owned enterprises have enjoyed the benefits of both market and planned economies (Dore et al. 2007). Meanwhile, China’s 1996 Electricity Law encouraged the government to support renewable and clean energy for power generation, which incentivized the construction of large-scale hydropower dams for nation-wide electrification, as well as the construction of small hydropower stations to promote rural electrification. As noted before, the increasingly competition between the “Big Five” power companies accelerated the exploitation of Yunnan’s hydropower resources (Han 2013).

Over the past couple of years, electricity markets in China’s eastern industrial areas are now facing a power surplus (Solomon 2016). This is due to the global economic slowdown, as well as over-investment in coal and nuclear power generation, and China’s trend towards less energy intensive industries. The installed capacity of Yunnan Province’s hydropower is at present not fully utilized (Xiao n.d.), and the government’s slogan has shifted since 2016 from ‘WEPT’ to “Yunnan Hydropower for Yunnan Use.” Meanwhile, the Yunnan Provincial government, hydropower companies and power grid companies are also exploring opportunities to export power to neighboring countries such as like Laos, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand and Myanmar (Yaqin 2016). For example, in 2015, China was already exporting approximately 70 MW of electricity to Laos, with an agreement to export up to 3000 MW (RPTCC 2015).

Overall, a profound transformation of China’s electricity sector is increasingly underway, incentivized by the need to reverse environmental degradation, meet international climate change obligations, clean up corruption, and address China’s power surplus (Hao 2016). Technical solutions to meeting the country’s energy demands are currently being proposed. The 13th Five-year Plan (2016–2020) responded to demands to reduce dependence on coal, develop clean and renewable energy, and enhance energy efficiency. China is also committed to achieving 15% non-fossil energy production by 2020. Hydropower, however, in this context is considered essential to attaining this non-fossil energy target.

Yet, China’s energy surplus has cooled down the fever to develop the Nu River dams, at least for the time being. Yunnan’s high level of hydropower development can either be seen as over-exploitation of the provinces’ natural resources, or as one of many steps towards a less carbon-intensive energy future (Magee/Henning 2017). Civil society groups argue that due to their social and ecological impacts large dams cannot be considered as clean energy. They argue that governance reform is required, namely: Firstly, (re)balancing the interests of various stakeholders, including restraining special interest groups and protecting public interests, especially the interests of disadvantaged groups. Secondly, clean relationships between government and enterprises must be fostered within the hydropower sector. Thirdly, the full and true costs of hydropower must be assessed, including impacts on watershed ecosystems and the rights of resettled communities and indigenous people. Lastly, hydropower governance must be improved, with increased transparency, public participation and accountability in decision-making (Xiaogang 2016).

Now, over ten years since the suspension of hydropower construction, the Yunnan Provincial government and Nu Prefecture government is proposing the establishment of a national park. This pathway is still in the decision-making stage, and it is not yet clear how proposals for the Nu River Grand Canyon National Park will unfold given that the full plans are yet to be disclosed to the public.

In November 2012, the CPC Central Committee made the creation of an “Ecological Civilization” in China a national strategy, and subsequently issued a “Decision on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensive Deep Reform” in November 2013. The Central Committee State Council also issued “Opinions on Accelerating the Development of Ecological Civilization” and a “General Plan for the Reform of the Ecological Civilization System” in 2015, which supported the establishment of a national park system and the implementation of stricter protection measures within national parks. Such protection measures include prohibiting any construction and development that damages the ecosystem and affects indigenous people’s homelands. Furthermore, these policies convey the importance of protecting the natural ecology and the authenticity and integrity of natural and cultural heritage.

This “national park pathway” was affirmed in the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016–2020). Although the outline of the plan proposed to coordinate hydropower development and ecological protection, the plan places high priority on ecological protection, and dictates scientific considerations for hydropower development in Southwestern China. The plan also mentioned establishing a national park system. However, despite this new direction in the national 13th Five-Year Plan, Yunnan’s 13th Five-Year Plan Outline still makes mention in a couple of sentences to plans for the Nu River hydropower dams and suggests doing more follow-up work on it.

The Policy Research Office of the Yunnan Provincial government put forward the idea of a Nu River Grand Canyon National Park in 2007 (Yihua/Yaqi 2007). However, this pathway had not been fully considered within the context of the regional hydropower boom. Even as plans for large hydropower dams were shelved in 2004, the Nu Prefecture government still implemented an “electricity combined with mining” economic strategy, and spared no effort to promote small hydropower projects to this end. This situation continued until 2013, when the Yunnan Provincial Party Committee appointed a new Nu Prefecture Secretary. The new Secretary, Zhiyun Tong, led a delegation to visit national parks in the United States, and subsequently began the development of national parks in Yunnan Province in 2014. The Secretary of the Yunnan Provincial Party Committee declared on 25th January 2016 that all small hydropower and mining development on the Nu River would be stopped to protect the river’s ecology and to support the Nu River Grand Canyon National Park proposal.

In May 2016, the Yunnan Provincial government approved the establishment of the Nu River Grand Canyon National Park. Later, the Secretary of Nu Prefecture stressed that national park construction was a new concept, and a step forward in promoting Nu River tourism development and ecological construction. He deemed this as the most suitable approach for Nu River development, incorporating both protection and utilization, in line with Premier Xi Jinping’s statement: “clean waters and green mountains can bring us prosperity and wealth” (Jufen 2016).

The Nu River Grand Canyon National Park plan was approved by experts in August 2016, but as of the time of writing (January 2019) has not yet been publicly disclosed. Furthermore, the public, including indigenous people in local communities and NGOs, did not have the opportunity to give direct input on the Nu River Grand Canyon National Park plan. This despite the fact that in 2015, the Yunnan Provincial government had issued a National Park Management Regulation that encourages local community participation in national park management.

A number of problems have emerged in the pilot phase of establishing national parks in Yunnan Province, the first being ecological protection. For example, in Pudacuo National Park, which was established in 2007 in Shangri-La County, in order to increase income, the core area of the nature reserve was developed for tourism. Furthermore, the government’s National Park Service became a liaison between tour companies, communities and government agencies. The fact that the National Park Service is supervising tourism development complicates the incentives for the National Park Service, as its funds are provided by tour companies. Meanwhile, in terms of community participation, local residents can only access low level employment opportunities, mainly cleaning work. Compensation for community members who lost their livelihoods with the establishment of the park consists mainly of cash compensation rather than sustainable livelihood capacity-building and reconstruction of their livelihoods.

The experience to date raises the question will the Nu River Grand Canyon National Park follow the old development model of government and capital domination and the neglect of minority community rights to participate in decision-making and to share benefits? Could it be possible that the development and management of the Nu River Grand Canyon National Park will ensure minority communities enjoying full access to information, inclusive participation and benefit sharing?

Regarding ecological conservation, the planned Nu River Grand Canyon National Park area does not cover the Nu River itself, the riverbanks and some small hydropower areas. This is because the National Park’s boundaries, like those of the Three Parallel Rivers Protected Areas and existing Nature Reserves, cut off at a certain elevation. The Secretary of Nu Prefecture has stated that “National park construction does not affect the Nu River hydropower development or other industry development, so do not put them against each other” (Meng 2016). The argument posed by the Yunnan Province Forestry Department is that if the national park’s boundaries include the Nu River itself, large number of people on both sides of the river would have to be resettled. The Yunnan Provincial Forestry Department said, “There is no direct relationship between the Nu River Grand Canyon National Park and halting Nu River hydropower development. If the national park covers the Grand Canyon, this means that the people on both sides of the river will be resettled, leading to a resettlement cost that is too high” (Meng 2016).

The final pathway we address is the Nu River water conservancy pathway, although very few details are available in the public domain. Interviews undertaken with government agencies for this research revealed that the Nu River is considered a very important freshwater resource, possibly even of higher value than its power generation capacity. This perspective has recently been incorporated into government planning documents.

In Yunnan Province’s 13th Five-Year Plan Outline, there are three large- to medium- scale hydropower comprehensive utilization projects planned on the Nu River, namely Fugong, Lushui and Saige, with Lushui also being detailed as a key water conservancy infrastructure project. Furthermore, in the Nu Prefecture 13th Five-Year Water Conservancy Plan Recommendations, the Water Resources and Hydropower Planning and Design General Institute proposed that in order to achieve flood control, irrigation, water supply, power generation, and other benefits, the Nu River hydropower development plans should be adjusted for comprehensive utilization of water resources. Furthermore, more focus should be placed on the important role of comprehensive water resource utilization in poverty alleviation, ecological protection, and livelihood improvement. It proposes that to promote the comprehensive development and utilization of water resources on the Nu River, priority should be given to water conservation projects such as Maji, Yabiluo, Lushui and Saige, which it suggests have great potential benefits, with little environmental impact. The Lushui water conservancy project, it states, can not only provide irrigation water to more than 300,000 mu of farmland downstream (1 mu = 666 m²), but can also supply water to households, as well as contribute to industrial and drinking water supplies in rural areas for Lushui County and some townships in the Baoshan Prefecture area. In a meeting between the Nu Prefecture government and the Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) in December 2016, the Secretary of the Nu Prefecture government proposed that comprehensive development of the Nu River water resource poses a fundamental solution to ecological protection and is the key to poverty alleviation in Nu Prefecture.

In summary, it seems that the rationality of the hydropower development pathway of the Nu River is moving towards that of water conservancy projects. Dams will likely shift their function from solely power generation to more comprehensive functions, including water supply, irrigation, flood control and drought resistance. So far, the local government and MWR are the main proponents of this pathway. There were initial indications that the Nu River Basin Comprehensive Plan may be approved in the first half of 2017, but as of the time of writing (January 2019) there has been no further details disclosed publicly. GW had applied to the Yangtze River Water Resources Commission for information disclosure in 2016, but received a response that the information involved state secrets so they were unable to provide access.

The analysis of pathways discussed above reveals that there are many possible alternatives for the Nu River. However, not every pathway has been given equal consideration.

There is no doubt that in the context of the national strategy of Western Development and WEPT, the hydropower development pathway has been given more consideration. Hydropower proponents have more power, money, resources, technology and knowledge, and include the NDRC and the NEA in positions of authority, local government, hydropower companies, and academics who use professional knowledge to promote hydropower development. Also important is that decision-making processes about the Nu River hydropower projects to date have proceeded without complete information disclosure and public participation, and have not fully taken account of the objections to the plans.

The civil society river protection pathway led by China’s environmental NGOs was originally in a marginalized position, but the NGOs’ ongoing actions introduced civil society voices to China’s central leadership. The history of the Nu River protection since 2003 shows that civil society can participate in and promote more inclusive, informed and responsible decision-making processes. As a result of the tireless efforts of China’s environmental NGOs, the Nu River avoided the fate of other dammed rivers, and its natural heritage and ecosystems remain largely intact.

Over more than 10 years of disagreement between the proponents of big hydropower development versus those seeking natural heritage protection, the local government consistently waited for decisions to be handed down by the central government, instead of pursuing other development pathways. Economic development and living standards in the Nu River basin are behind those of other regions in Yunnan, but the ecological environment has been maintained. When central authorities proposed the creation of an Ecological Civilization in China, the Nu Prefecture government only then made a choice to work on poverty alleviation and approved the national park’s creation as a development pathway.

In recent years, China’s leaders have promoted new development concepts, including innovation, coordination, and green, open and shared development. The national park pathway for the Nu River has the potential to provide more opportunities for local people and nature to coexist sustainably. However, the future of the Nu River remains uncertain, as the local government and the energy administration of the central government have not completely abandoned the Nu River hydropower plans, and there remains much resistance to public participation and information disclosure which are necessary for sustainable development. One of the biggest indicators of this resistance to public participation is the fact that the Nu River basin comprehensive plan has been kept confidential. Therefore, most importantly, decision-making about which development pathway is chosen for the future for the Nu River, should be inclusive, informed and accountable to ensure that the rights and entitlements of ethnic communities living along the river are recognized.