Chinese walker

China has seen rapid economic growth since the start of the reform era in 1979. Annual GDP growth averaged 9.6% between 1979 and 2004. In 2004, GDP growth reached 10.1%, an achievement that attracted global attention. Over this period the population has grown sharply; huge quantities of resources have been consumed; environmental pollution has worsened; ecosystems have been wrecked; and vast areas of land have been lost. This has given rise to all manner of environmental problems. The economy has grown, but the environment has suffered. Over the past 27 years, China has adhered to an economic model characterised by high levels of pollution, emissions and power consumption, combined with low levels of efficiency. It has repeated the “pollute first, clean up later” model that Western nations adhered to during their early stages of capital accumulation.

The Tang-dynasty poet Du Fu once wrote: “Though a country be sundered, hills and rivers endure,” yet we can only reflect that while our country endures, our hills and rivers have been devastated. Environmental degradation harms public health, affects social stability and holds back China`s sustainable economic growth. It is a major problem, one which threatens not only the development but also the survival of the Chinese people.

Decreases in cultivated land

Remote-sensing surveys show that China`s cultivated land area plummeted between 1988 and 2000, from 1,307,400 square kilometres in 1991 to 1,282,400 square kilometres in 2000 – from 1.8 mu (0.0012 square kilometres) per head to 1.5 mu (0.0010 square kilometres) per head. Construction accounted for 56.6% of the decrease, 21% of land was forested, 16% was flooded and 4% became grassland.

During the 1990s, the number of cities in China`s east increased from 315 to 521. Each year, an average of 767.42 square kilometres is built on, with this figure growing at an average of 5.76% every year. The land around Beijing has borne the brunt of this, with the city expanding by about 20 square kilometres per year. Besides urban construction, the effects of industry and mining account are also significant. Statistics from the provinces of Jilin, Jiangsu, Fujian, Henan, Hubei and Hunan show that land given over to mining development increased 1.96 times between 1986 and 2000, and the land area that was damaged increased by 4.71 times.

Over this period some cultivated land was added: 24.2% of it by reclaiming woodland, 66% from grasslands and 1.9% from bodies of water. But this was all obtained at the expense of natural ecosystems. Over the last 40 years, land reclamation has lead to the loss of 11,900 square kilometres of coastal shallows, with industry taking more than 10000 square kilometres of coastal wetlands. Half of China`s coastal shallows are now completely destroyed. And despite this, the trend of overall loss of cultivated land has not been reversed.

Where the loss of cultivated land is due to a change in usage, the soil itself at least remains, though sealed below concrete and asphalt. However, soil that is swept away by wind and water is lost forever. In 1999, 3.56 million square kilometres of land were affected by erosion due to wind, water and freeze-thaw cycles. Of this land, 82.53% lies in China`s west. The country has 1.74 million square kilometres of desert spread across 30 provinces, over 90% of which is in the west. An astonishing 1.6 billion tonnes of soil is swept into the Yellow River every year, approximately 400 million tonnes of which is deposited on the riverbed downstream, causing it to rise between eight and 10 centimetres annually. During the past 40 years, the riverbed in the lower reaches of the Yellow River has risen by two metres, and on average it stands three to five metres higher than the land that it flows through. In places it is as much as 10 metres higher. The Yangtze River basin also loses 2.4 billion tonnes of soil per year.

With the loss of soil, valuable nutrients are lost. In the Yellow River basin alone, about 40 million tonnes of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are lost annually – more than the total consumption of China`s fertiliser industry in 2003 (39.9 million tonnes). A conservative estimate, factoring in soil lost to water erosion in the Yangtze River basin and wind erosion in arid and semi-arid regions, puts annual loss at five times that figure. The lost nutrition is replaced artificially, atmospherically and with ore, resulting in serious environmental pollution. China`s government should take urgent and effective measures to prevent the further loss of soil.

Photo by vailpost

The threat to China`s forests

According to State Forestry Administration figures, forestry coverage in China rose from 12.98% in 1986 to 16.55% in 1999, a growth of 33%. But we need to be clear about what went into those figures. Many areas adjusted the canopy density rate used to define a “forest” downwards from 0.3 to 0.2. Bushes and shrubs were also added to the figures. It is possible that the amount of forest did not actually increase – only the figures did. In China no old-growth forest remains, and forests over a century old are extremely rare. Even if the above figures are accurate, China`s huge population means that the per capita average is extremely low – only 21.3% of the global average. In terms of volume, China has only 12.5% of the global per capita average of 72 cubic metres.

It should be noted that although central government`s investment in forestry has been gradually increasing, forest management policy`s disregard for the environment has led to a potential threat from weak and unsustainable single-species forests. Between the 1950s and 1990s, the forested area affected by disease and pests increased six-fold. This increase was greatest in the 1990s, 196% of the increase during the 1980s. If China`s vast subtropical mountainous areas were sealed off and human interference reduced, their broadleaf evergreen forests would recover. But tragically, paper manufacturers have felled natural forests in order to plant the invasive eucalyptus tree. Intervention by the authorities has been too weak to prevent this destruction, and some local forestry authorities have even profited from collusion with interest groups.

China`s water crisis

China consumed a total of 556.7 billion cubic metres of water in 2001, 13.2 billion cubic metres more than in 1998. Most of this increase came not from replenishable surface water, but from groundwater obtained by drilling – water that should be left for future generations. Water usage rates for major river basins such as the Huai River, Liao River and Yellow River have reached 60%; the rate in the Hai River is 90% and for the Hei River the rate is 110%. The internationally-recognised warning level is between 30% and 40%.

An inefficient use of water resources and a lack of water conservation awareness mean that even this massive overuse does not meet our so-called “needs.” A total of 60% of China`s 669 cities face water scarcity, and of these, 110 face serious water shortages. Around 60 areas suffer from lowered groundwater levels, with a zone measuring 30,000 to 50,000 square kilometres in the North China Plain being the world`s largest. Over-extraction of groundwater not only happens in China`s arid north, but also in the water-rich south. Subsidence affects 46 cities in 16 provinces, including Shanghai, Tianjin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanxi. In south China`s Suzhou, 180 square kilometres of land has subsided over 60 centimetres since 1949. In Wuxi, 59.5 square kilometres has subsided by the same amount, and 43 square kilometres in Changzhou.

The relatively water-rich Sanjiang Plain, in northeast China, has also seen a large-scale extraction of water and soil degradation, has led to the loss of wetlands. In the past decade, the northern part of the plain lost 105 square kilometres of wetland. The Songnen Plain and Liao River delta have lost 1,820 square kilometres and 230 square kilometres hectares respectively.

But China’s water crisis is not a purely underground phenomena, it also manifests itself in the loss of glaciers on high plateaus. Glaciers are China`s “solid reservoirs” and an important source of water for arid regions. Global warming caused glaciers north of the Sichuan-Tibet highway in Nyingtri (Lingzhi) to shrink by 100 metres between 1986 and 1998. This retreat will directly impact the progress of the western branch of China`s South to North Water Transfer project.

The destruction of China’s ecosystems

There are ten main types of land ecosystem in the world, and China has nine: tropical rainforest, evergreen broadleaf forests, deciduous broadleaf forests, conifer forest, mangrove forest, grasslands, alpine meadows, desert and tundra. The only ecosystem it lacks is the African savannah, though regions such as the Hunsandake, Keerqin, Mu-us and Hunlun Buir have the same structure and function. China is therefore the only country in the world which may feature all of the world’s ecosystems.

But unfortunately, every one of these ecosystems is suffering. Aside from China`s well-documented loss of forests and expanding deserts, alpine meadows, temperate grasslands and mangrove forests are also being seriously degraded. The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is one of the worlds largest, highest and most unique ecosystems. But long-standing over-grazing and misuse has caused serious degradation of its alpine meadows, mainly demonstrated by the drop in hay production from 300 kilograms per mu (667 square metres) in the 1960s, to 100 kilograms today. This destruction is also attested to in the region`s increasing mole-rat infestation: from eight to 10 mole rats per hectare in the past, to more than 30 today.

Ninety percent of China’s usable grasslands display varying degrees of damage, and this area is expanding by 20,000 square kilometres per year. Of this lost grassland, 55% is being used for cultivation, and 30% has simply become unusable. The majority of grasslands in the west of China are over-used; in Xinjiang the rate of overuse is 121%, in Ningxia is 72% and in Inner Mongolia is 66%.

Mangrove forests are globally recognised as one of the world`s most productive and diverse ecosystems. China’s mangrove forests are mostly located to the south of the Fujian coast and at one time covered 2,500 square kilometres. In the 1950s, they covered 500 square kilometres. Now they only cover 150 square kilometres. Since 1949, exploitation, felling and inefficient usage of coastal mangrove forests has brought unprecedented destruction, especially in the past 20 years.

The UN’s Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) lists 740 endangered species. Of these, 189 are in China, around a quarter of the total. Between 4,000 and 5,000 of China`s plant species are endangered or approaching endangerment, from 15 to 20% of the country`s total number of plant species. Environmental changes and the fragmentation of habitats are causing this loss of biodiversity. For instance, in the natural forests of Nenjiang county in northeast China`s Heilongjiang province, endangered species were distributed across 240 different locations, with an average size of 0.8 square kilometres. By 2000 this had fragmented to 343 different locations with an average size of 0.68 square kilometres.

NEXT: How can China strengthen environmental protection?

Jiang Gaoming is a chief researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences` Institute of Botany and a doctoral candidate tutor, vice secretary-general of UNESCO`s China-MAB Committee and director of the China Environmental Culture Promotion Association. He is recognized for his introduction of the concepts of “urban vegetation” and “using natural forces to restore China`s ecosystems.”

Jixi Gao is chief specialist and head of the Institute of Ecology at the ChinaAcademy of Environmental Sciences. He has long been involved in the evaluation of functional ecologies, environmental assessments of regional development strategies and research into environmental pollution testing.

Traditional Chinese medicine is used by 1.3 billion people in China, and many Chinese communities around the world. The country has 3,800 Chinese medical institutions of county level and above, which together employ around 400,000 people. Traditional Chinese pharmacies are common both in cities and the countryside, and sell huge numbers of treatments every day. Millions of hectares of land are used to grow millions of tonnes of raw materials for the production of medicines. There are almost 3,000 enterprises and 2,000 factories that produce Chinese medicine (including some that also manufacture western medicine). It is a huge industry, and the country`s medicinal resources provide many with the healthcare they need.

But China`s twentieth-century population explosion led to a massive increase in the use of these resources. The export of raw materials in exchange for foreign currency left the country’s natural resources in a terrible state. Outdated, improperly-used technology in medicine has also resulted in a huge degree of waste. As a result, the supply of raw materials for Chinese medicines has become ever tighter, with the use of some ingredients being banned for their own preservation. It is a hard industry to make sustainable.

Major causes of waste include the failure to harvest medicinal herbs on time, the damage caused by poor transportation conditions and losses due to heat, moisture, pests and mould. Poor manufacturing processes also result in herbs prepared for decoction that are too thick, or crystals that are too large, affecting the absorption of active components and squandering valuable resources.

There has already been much research and debate on the subject; policies have also been introduced on cultivating new sources of Chinese medicine. But still nothing has been done to reduce this staggering loss of resources. If effective measures are not taken soon, the plight of China`s endangered species will continue to worsen and environmental protection will be held back. Consumers` desire for “convenience”, the improper use of technology and corporate greed means the situation just keeps getting worse.

Pharmaceutical textbooks tell us that to extract active components efficiently; saturated solutions must be removed and replaced with new solutions for a second and third round of steeping. This increases the amount of work involved and the power consumed. It also lengthens the production cycle and increases costs. When faced with a choice between lowering costs and increasing extraction, the majority of enterprises opt to save money. As a result, huge quantities of active components are thrown away with the “dregs” of the production process – and the quality of the medicine is reduced. This is one reason why mass-produced medicines are not as effective as ones made to order.

A lot of waste is caused by preparations that use only one active ingredient or only one type of ingredient. In some cases, a volatile component may be obtained through distillation, while another water-soluble component is discarded. Granulated preparations have been tested and found not to contain the active components of their raw materials, which have in fact been discarded during the manufacturing process.

Many manufacturers also only extract one chemical from their raw materials, which results in a colossal waste of resources. For instance, companies that manufacture for export extract US$13 million worth of ephedrine from 30,000 tonnes of ephedra annually, 10 times the amount that is used in traditional Chinese medicine. And liquorice root is a similar case. It is clear that the environmental damage caused has little to do with the plants` traditional use in Chinese medicine.

Another Chinese medicine, recommended for anti-malarial treatments by the World Health Organisation, has a huge market. But once the necessary component has been extracted, antibiotic components are thrown out with the “waste”. Over 5,000 tonnes are wasted annually. The use of resources in Chinese medicine needs to be overseen by a central authority.

Instant preparations

The 1950s saw the birth of the first “Green Revolution”, with world agriculture`s move from tall- to short-stalk crop varieties and the use of pesticides, fertilisers and agricultural machinery. These changes allowed 19 developing countries to achieve food self-sufficiency. But since then, the global population has grown and pollution has worsened. The coming decades will see the world`s population increase from six to nine billion, and the achievements of the Green Revolution will be hard pressed to meet new food and environmental demands. As a result, the United Nation`s Food and Agricultural Organization has called for a new, second Green Revolution.

But what will the weapons of this new revolution be? How can it meet the challenges of increasing food production against a background of shrinking arable land and freshwater resources; the need to protect the environment and public health from the effects of fertilisers and pesticides; and the effects of climate change on agriculture? Scientists have turned to genetic engineering, aiming to transfer advantageous genes to crops and increase harvests. And the media has called it the greatest hope of the new Green Revolution.

Scientists are now able to transplant genes from other species into crops, creating entirely new species and even halving plant growth cycles. US firms Dupont and Monsanto, along with Europe`s Novartis and others, have made massive investments in gene technology research. Pioneer, a US company, has decoded three-quarters of the 80,000 genes in maize, and expects to complete the remaining quarter within five years. Monsanto is attempting to identify and patent 15% of the maize genome.

Support for genetic engineering in China is steadily increasing, and the use of genetically-modified crops to increase harvests has been welcomed by the country`s agricultural industry. China has given priority to the development of pest-resistant cotton, yellow dwarf disease resistant winter wheat, bacterial blight-resistant rice and pesticide-resistant rice; as well as developing brown-rot resistant potatoes and new strains of maize. The country is also committed to developing technology such as genetically-modified “super” pigs, cows and sheep, animal embryo transfers, animal gender-selection technology, genetically-engineered immunisations and bioreactors.

The long list of new technologies shows that for Chinese scientists, the new Green Revolution is about increasing productivity based on the contributions of molecular biology. But they ignore an equally – if not more important – contribution: that from ecology.

China produces 480 million tonnes of grain every year. Of this, 180 million tonnes are used for human consumption, and 120 million tonnes (25% of the total) becomes livestock fodder. Of this fodder, 100 million tonnes is used to feed pigs, China`s second largest consumer of grain after people. Grain production is not the issue therefore; the question is about our sources of meat and milk. A Green Revolution based on ecology should not focus on the production of grain, but of straw. It should use ecological principles to solve food and environmental problems, not polluting methods such as fertilisers and pesticides. The Green Revolution must use existing species to increase humanity`s food supply, rather than manipulating genes.

The ecological solution is not to raise grain production directly, but to utilise the 50% of China’s crop weight that is currently discarded, which is mostly straw, and use it to produce more food, animal fodder and fertiliser. This will greatly increase the productivity of China`s land. The large quantities of organic fertiliser that can be produced as a by-product will increase the harvests from large quantities of low-quality and medium-quality land, indirectly increasing grain production.

China has 1.831 billion mu (around 1,221,000 square kilometres) of cultivatable land, of which 155 million mu (around 133, 000 square kilometres) are salt-affected and 1 billion mu (around 667, 000 square kilometres) is arid. Genetic engineering will not be enough to grow grain in these regions. At the same time, China produces 600 to 700 million tonnes of straw every year, which represents a fresh weight of 1.8 to 2.1 billion tonnes. This could feed 180 to 210 million tonnes of livestock, which would provide, at a conservative estimate, 72 to 84 million tonnes of meat. Assuming five portions of grain are equivalent to one portion of meat, China`s annual straw production generates the equivalent of a further 360 to 420 million tonnes of grain, a figure twice current production levels. Animals and microorganisms can convert the currently-unused straw to food and grain, something that no technology can currently do. Of course, we cannot use all of this straw, but with technological advances, using half of it would be entirely plausible. Currently, 73% of China`s straw is burnt, discarded or used in other low-efficiency ways, so there is certainly a lot of scope for its increased use.

We must also turn to China`s mobile fertiliser factories: the country`s cows and sheep. The average cow produces 25 kilograms of dung per day, and 50% of China`s straw production could feed from 360 to 420 million head of cattle: a total of 3.28 to 3.83 billion tonnes of dung per year. This entirely organic fertiliser would contain between 5.67 and 6.62 million tonnes of nitrogen, equivalent to between 28.35 and 33.10 million tonnes of ammonium sulphate. This approaches China`s total annual fertiliser production of 33.90 million tonnes, but unlike chemical fertilisers, the use of this organic fertiliser will not harm the soil or cause pollution. Tests I carried out at Shandong Agricultural University show that if the amount of organic matter in the soil is raised from 1% to 5%, the amount of fertiliser used can be cut in half and still increase productivity.

Processed straw will feed cattle and the dung will produce biogas. The sludge from biogas production can then be returned to the fields as organic fertiliser. China already has this technology, but its use is seasonal and decentralised. Straw production is difficult to centralise, and should be collected and used locally on a local level. There is already the technology to convert straw into fodder for cows and sheep.

Malnutrition is a major issue in developing countries, and meat is much more nutritious than grain. Using straw to produce meat, milk and fertilisers provides countries with necessary nutrition and organic fertiliser for their soil. All nations, particularly developing ones, should launch a new Green Revolution in which ecology plays a leading role, both solve food security issues and improve the environment.

Jiang Gaoming is a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences` Institute of Botany. He is also vice secretary-general of the UNESCO China-MAB (Man and the Biosphere) Committee and a member of the UNESCO MAB Urban Group.

The last decade has been particularly eventful for Africa. On the political front, the continent has witnessed many transitions that were unprecedented in its entire post-colonial history. For instance, the exit of such strong political figures as Charles Taylor, Gnassingbe Eyadema and Jerry Rawlings in west Africa has changed the face of governance in the region.

On the economic front, many African countries have embarked on reforms aimed at giving a new face to the continent’s economy. Not a few African leaders celebrated in 2005 when their countries secured relief for the huge debt profile that was fast strangulating their economies.

A number of hitherto state-controlled economies in Africa have introduced liberalisation and privatisation policies that are fast redefining the way business is being done. These include Egypt, Angola, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa and Algeria, which together form the bulk of the continent’s new economic power brokers.

Most of the leaders of these nations believe their countries are on the path to a genuine economic renaissance.

China`s rise

In 1970, 39% of the world’s poorest people lived in China and 37% lived in other parts of Asia. But the Asian economic miracle of the 1980s and 1990s lifted the living standards of huge numbers of people. The percentage of those scraping by on less than US$2 a day in Asia fell from 48% in 1980 to 16% in 1998.

In contrast, Africa only accounted for 16% of the world’s extreme poor in 1980, but made up two-thirds of the global poor in 1998. By the World Bank’s US$3 per day standard, 64% of Africans were poor in 1998, up from 55% in 1980.

But all is not gloomy on the continent. Figures from the African Development Bank (AfDB) indicate that the continent maintained an average economic growth rate of 5% in 2004 and 2005. And the bank predicts an even higher average of 5.8% and 5.5% for 2006 and 2007 respectively. “Two thirds of the 30 countries surveyed showed a net growth in investment that was by far the best in seven years. If the good weather holds up, along with world commodity prices, the improvement could continue into 2007″, AfDB notes in its Africa Economic Outlook.

Africa can learn a lot from China. China`s transformation shows that poverty can be tackled and extreme poverty can be eliminated. From a growth rate that was virtually stagnant in the 1970s, China has risen to become the world`s fourth-largest economy. “We can learn from them how to organize our trade policy, to move from low to middle-income status, to educate our children in skills and areas that pay off in just a couple of years,” said Donald Kaberuka, AfDB president.

China gave a new impetus to its relationship with Africa when, at the beginning of the year, it dubbed 2006 the “year of Africa.” Unlike many international declarations, evidence abounds that proves the impact of that statement. In 2006, Nigeria alone benefited from over US$3 billion of Chinese investment in its oil and gas sector, and is looking forward to another investment of US$4 billion in its railways that would help revamp a sector that has remained moribund since the 1960s. China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) is to build a 1,315 kilometre railway from Lagos, in southern Nigeria, to Kano, the commercial hub in the country`s north. CCECC president Lin Rongxin said the five-year project will generate employment for 50,000 Nigerian young people.

In Angola, an oil boom that might see the country overtake Nigeria as the continent’s biggest oil producer is already underway, and China is at the forefront of this revolution. With increased investment and aid from Beijing, Angola is rebuilding its infrastructure on a massive scale, most of which had long been overwhelmed by an upsurge in the population.

Angola currently produces an average of 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd). But some experts have projected that the country’s production will hit 3.4 million bpd by 2011. Angola joined the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on January 1, 2007, as the second member from sub-Saharan Africa and the first new member since Nigeria joined in 1971 (Gabon had joined the cartel in 1975 but pulled out). Angola’s new profile is one of the success stories of China’s year of Africa.

Observers say the massive Chinese investment into infrastructure in Angola and other countries in Africa may create atmosphere for development. “Africa`s need for infrastructure investments, estimated at US$20 billion a year for the next decade, is understood and supported by China. This is an area considered too risky by many of Africa`s traditional partners,” says Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigeria`s former minister of finance.

For Kwesi Aye, a Ghanaian economist, “even if unintended, China`s effort in building roads, schools, bridges, hospital and power infrastructure in Africa is most likely to jump-start the countries that harbour them on the path to change.” Aye is delighted that the China-Africa summit in Beijing last November secured a hydro-electric dam deal for the country with the Sino Hydro Corporation. The US$600 million 400-megawatt hydro-electric project is expected to help improve the electricity supply in the west African country.

A unique opportunity

China’s exponential expansion into Africa is well known and has been the subject of numerous reports. But China’s environmental footprint on the continent has not yet been fully addressed. And this is becoming an increasingly hot topic within Africa.

Examples abound where Chinese companies have been caught flouting conservation laws and collaborating with criminals in the exploitation of Africa’s natural assets. While western agents also do the same, the lack of a powerful environmental lobby within China that can effectively critique Beijing’s actions in Africa %26shy;is a real worry.

In Gabon, the activities of the Chinese state-run oil company Sinopec have stimulated public outrage. In 2002, Gabon selected a quarter of the country as a nature reserve, protecting 67,000 square kilometres of mostly virgin rainforest. But it has emerged that Sinopec has been prospecting for oil in one of Gabon`s national parks. The company has been charged with mass pollution, dynamiting areas of the park and carving roads through the forest. And all of this was illegal, as the environmental impact study Sinopec was forced to conduct has not yet been approved. A Gabonese government delegation visited the park and corroborated that Sinopec was guilty of a whole variety of environmentally-damaging practices.

The scandal has sparked disquiet among Gabon’s international donors, while Gabonese activists charge that corrupt local officials have been personally profiting as they look the other way. After considerable pressure, the national parks council finally directed Sinopec to stop its exploration activities. But a massive ore-mining project is soon to get underway in northern Gabon, also run by a Chinese company. There are real fears that further environmental damage may be caused by resource-hungry Chinese companies, facilitated by corrupt government agencies in Gabon.

There is also growing evidence that China’s strategy is based on protecting the country from further environmental damage, while obtaining resources from other parts of the world. After the Yangtze River floods of 1998 (which caused 2,500 deaths and billions of dollars in damage), the government directed that logging in the country had to be seriously regulated. Tree planting and the protection of forests was the new policy. Illegal logging was also cracked down on.

However, China still needs wood for construction, pulp mills and furniture manufacturing. And it is now getting huge amounts from overseas -%26shy; particularly from Africa. Much of this is illegally harvested. Imports of industrial wood have more than tripled since 1993 and China now trails only America in wood consumption.

Since the reform and open door policy of the late 1970s, China has achieved a consistently high level of economic growth, with an average annual growth rate of over 9.5%. But the ruthless pursuit of GDP growth has been highly inefficient, causing widening income disparities and environmental degradation on a colossal scale, and resulting in insufficient industrial innovation.

These consequences put into question not only the sustainability of China`s development, but also jeopardise social stability in the country. In recent years, income disparities and environmental degradation have led to an increasing number of social protests, especially in the coastal regions. The Chinese Communist Party has tightened its political control in order to maintain stability, but the leadership also understands that it must adjust China`s development model if it is to cope with the undesirable consequences of rapid economic growth.

Environmental issues in China are becoming increasingly political, and the country is entering an era of environmental politics like many other countries before it. Demands for a healthier environment from the prosperous eastern coastal regions have become increasingly difficult to ignore.

Since the Hu Jintao%26mdash;Wen Jiabao leadership came to power, China has been searching for a new development model which focuses on sustainability and social justice. China`s 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010) and the recent Sixth Plenum have both shown %26lsquo;building a harmonious society` to be top of the leadership`s agenda.

The “green GDP” campaign is the means by which the leadership is enforcing its new policy orientation. While green GDP is not yet a widely accepted concept, the Chinese leadership is using it to try to change traditional opinions on economic development among its party cadres and government officials.

Green GDP is a figure for gross domestic product which takes environmental damage into account, and it can be expressed as a simplified calculation:

Green GDP = GDP – the costs of natural resource consumption – the costs of environmental depletion

In practice, a green GDP accounting method usually includes five natural resource consumption costs, including arable land, mineral resources, forest, water and fishery resources, and two environmental depletion costs, environmental pollution and ecological degradation.

In the light of the overheated state of the economy since 2003, green GDP is also considered to be a way of controlling local officials` economic activities. The green GDP concept is also in line with the essential political objective of using the “scientific development” model to build a “harmonious society”. Therefore, as one observer has pointed out, the combination of social trends, macroeconomic overheating and political factors has created the conditions under which green GDP has become fashionable.

China`s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) recently published their first green GDP accounting report based on local experiments. However, the result remains contentious.

The concept of green GDP has not yet been scientifically justified, and how to include factors such as environmental damage and public satisfaction is very problematic. Local governments have different ways of calculating their green GDP, leading to a lack of consensus on the meaning of green GDP at the national level.

Furthermore, out of the usual 20 categories of environmental pollution, SEPA and NBS only managed to include the costs of 10, and included no ecological degradation costs at all, due to the difficulty of obtaining data and the limited techniques. It is clear that green GDP, both as a concept and a practice, is still at an early stage in China.

According to the “China Green National Accounting Study Report 2004″, environmental pollution cost China 511.8 billion yuan (about US$64 billion) in economic losses, accounting for 3.05% of the year`s GDP. The environmental costs of water pollution, air pollution, solid waste and pollution accidents accounted for 55.9%, 42.9% and 1.2% of the total costs respectively. The report also estimated that to treat this pollution, China would have had to spend as much as 287.4 billion yuan, equivalent to about 1.8% of the GDP in 2004. However, in 2004 the actual investment in waste and pollution treatment was only about 190 billion yuan. The gap between these figures cannot be ignored.

In recent decades, local GDP growth rates have been the indicator by which the central government evaluates the performance of local government officials. This evaluation system has provided the incentive for local governments to pursue local economic growth regardless of negative consequences such as environmental damage and social conflict.

Policy implementation in the provinces has always proved a difficult task for the Chinese central government. They have to provide sufficient incentives for local governments to induce them to follow central policies. As repeatedly emphasised by SEPA deputy director, Pan Yue, there is a need for the central government to introduce a new system for evaluating the performance of local governments, which would provide an incentive for government officials to change their behaviour. The old evaluation system consists of three parts with 17 items, of which only one concerns the environment. This is not sufficient to induce local government officials to take the environment into account in their decision making.

In August 2004 the Ministry of Personnel issued a research report on “The Assessment of the Chinese Government`s Efficiency”, and released an evaluation system. This system contains three parts and 11 items, each of which has three indices. It aims to improve government efficiency and states that its goal is public satisfaction. The environment still comprises only one item, but its relative importance seems higher, since it is now one out of 11 items, rather than one among 17.

An experimental version of the new evaluation system is being carried out in three provinces: Inner Mongolia (north China), Sichuan (central China), and Zhejiang (east China). The new system is expected to give substantially more weight to environmental concerns and relate them to officials` performance in several ways:

1) local citizens` assessment of the quality of the environment;

2) measurement of changes in quality of air and drinking water;

3) forest coverage rate in the local area;

There has always been controversy over the link between environmental protection and economic growth, particularly in developing countries, where the need for growth can hinder environmental efforts. Many of China’s environmental problems have their roots in poverty, and economic relief can help with environmental recovery. But poverty alleviation does not always work as it should.

Wuwei county, in east China`s Anhui province, has an annual income of 500 million yuan (around US$64.5 million); its economy has ranked in the province’s top 10 for the last three years, yet it is still classed as a key county for national poverty-relief projects. Similarly, Fengtai county, also in Anhui, has had the largest income in the province for the past three years, and is still a focus of the province`s poverty alleviation programme.

Around 200 million people in China live in poverty, second in the world only to India, with most living in the rural parts of less-developed regions. Although China has seen rapid economic growth, it has been concentrated on the east coast, with the rest of the country left far behind. Some have said that in terms of development, China has “European” cities, but “African” villages.

Two decades of poverty alleviation have achieved significant results, but some areas constantly fall back into poverty – or even seem to worsen with increasing aid. If we want to know why, we must look at China`s poverty-relief policies.

Firstly, we should ask who actually needs this relief. The answer is, of course, the people who are actually poor – and China does not have many impoverished government officials. Travelling to poverty-stricken counties in north China`s Hebei province, it is common to be welcomed by cadres sporting gold jewellery, who will take you to sumptuous banquets in their luxury cars. No-one is more concerned with poverty alleviation than cadres in poor areas, but some seem to aim on getting rich first. They have been known to burst into tears on hearing that their counties are no longer to be classed as “poor”; some will go to any lengths hoping Beijing will keep the title. Clearly these cadres are not really interested in ending poverty. And while the people want to be better-off, but the officials want their hardship to continue, what hope is there of government funds being used efficiently?

Officials also attract investment in the name of poverty relief. In order to increase their tax base they will grant any requests that businesses make, sometimes even portraying local objections as betrayals of the local people – and their factory-building saviours. As a result, polluting industries can move from south to north and from east to west. But how many vulnerable ecosystems have been sacrificed? China`s west is hugely ecologically rich, but development in the east has relied on the west`s water and air, its biodiversity and its energy resources. In losing these precious resources, China ultimately harms itself.

Mismanaged poverty alleviation has given rise to recurring – even worsening – economic hardship, and has caused much environmental damage in poor areas.

Secondly, we must ask who poverty relief has made richer. Cannier business people see both the government determination to tackle poverty and the greed of local government leaders, and build factories in poor areas, knowing it will be welcomed by local officials. They choose poorer areas because their polluting industries are no longer welcome in more developed regions, because preferential policies are in place, because they will have local government support and because the costs of consuming environmental resources are low or non-existent. As a result, vast profits can be made by exploiting local resources. Businesses reach agreements with local governments, who then silence public opposition. Some business leaders even persuade provincial leaders to support projects which result in complete environmental ruin.

Business aims for profit maximisation and a quick return on investments, and will easily forget those in actual need of poverty alleviation. Many government-funded poverty-alleviation projects employ 90% of their workers from other areas, severely limiting their impact on the local economy. Area residents, who 10 years ago hailed a hydroelectric plant for the prosperity it would bring, today are left picking through the plant’s garbage.

Projects that do not take the poor into consideration will not help economic rehabilitation; local governments will simply be left to cope with further environmental damage, as already-vulnerable ecosystems are destroyed.

Thirdly, we must ask what role the poor should play in poverty alleviation. Why are some areas still poor, despite almost 60 years of government poverty-relief policies? The problem is that the people`s own initiative has not been brought into play. We think of these places as lacking funds, but what they really lack is skilled people – and not just in terms of technical skills. Those who can move away do not return, leaving nobody to manage the land. Villages in poor areas are mostly populated by older people and women – all the able-bodied young men have gone to work in the cities. And it is not a trend that should be encouraged: migrants to the cities will see the surplus value of their labour enjoyed by others. Poverty relief would be better used to provide opportunities for those who choose to remain in their villages.

Continual changes in land policy have also caused too much uncertainty for people to rely on it for their livelihoods. Agrarian reforms in the early 1950s brought the people and the land together, but this did not last long. The subsequent move towards communes took the land out of their hands and resulted in food shortages. They were only reunited with the land again under the household contract responsibility system, which ensured an adequate food supply. History proves that China’s rural residents can only pull themselves out of poverty when they manage their own land.

But the poor do not have control over their land: they have been subordinated to the businesses that aim to profit while paying lip service to poverty relief. Rural residents can sell off their land, trees and wildlife, but it will only leave them poorer. If they owned the land, a larger percentage of the money earned by these businesses would belong to them, and they would not need to sell off their resources. After all, when the environment is already depleted, who will invest?

Poverty has become a kind of resource. There is no shortage of money from national poverty alleviation funds, environmental management funds, disaster relief funds, money for education and for irrigation – not to mention money from NGOs, businesses and individual donations. But the poor themselves have no voice in how the money is spent, and many problems have arisen as a result. A change in the basic methods of poverty relief is needed; it must be questioned how the nation’s money can best be spent.

Future poverty relief projects must include the active participation of the poor; they should not simply be implemented by government. The poor need to have a stake in the land, the environment and any projects that are launched in their name. Poverty alleviation policy should be designed to transform what are now passive recipients into stakeholders. This is the only way in which poverty relief can be effective, and the environment in poor areas can be saved from unfettered exploitation.

Jiang Gaoming is a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences` Institute of Botany. He is also vice secretary-general of the UNESCO China-MAB (Man and the Biosphere) Committee and a member of the UNESCO MAB Urban Group.

Homepage photo by Joel Meyerson

Isabel Hilton: Professor Maathai, your story all began with one fig tree, a fig tree that you knew when you were a child. Could you tell me about that fig tree and what its significance was?

Wangari Maathai: When I was growing up in the highlands of Kenya, there were many fig trees, which were normally very huge, mysterious trees. They were nearly always green and had a huge canopy. But there was one particular tree that was very close to our household, and I must have collected some of the twigs that had fallen from this fig tree as I was collecting firewood for my mother, because I remember my mother telling me not to collect twigs from the fig tree. When I asked her why I should not, she advised that this was a tree of God. This tree is never cut; it is never burnt; it is never used for anything. Later on, I understood that when our people would offer burnt offerings they would do so at a fig tree. Fig trees were for all practical purposes a sacred tree, a revered tree. Not a God, but a tree that reminded my people of the mystery and the power, the greatness of the creator who was responsible for them and all the living things around them.

IH: But despite this, the fig tree that you knew, that straddled a stream that you played in, was cut down. What happened when the fig tree was cut down?

WM: This fig tree was cut down some 20 years later, when we introduced cash crops: tea, in this particular area. And because this fig tree was a huge tree, it was perceived to occupy a lot of land, and waste a lot of land where we could plant tea bushes to make money. So the farmer cut the tree and planted tea bushes.

When I visited the tree and found that it had been cut and saw where the [tea] bushes were, I was sad but also happy. Sad that the tree had been cut, but happy that nothing was growing where the fig tree used to stand. It was as if the ground refused to support anything else now that the fig tree was gone.

IH: What had happened to the stream?

WM: I came to understand much later that in fact these fig trees are very important in the ecosystem. They were part and parcel of a system that held the soil together, that prevented soil erosion and prevented landslides. And as I understood much later, the roots of this tree went deep into the belly of the earth, and reached the underground water reservoirs, which allowed the water to come up around these roots and to break where the land was weak. The land was weak right next to our house, where our stream broke. This was the stream that our house used, I used to go to this stream and fetch water for my mother. So when the tree was cut – amazingly – the stream disappeared. And this for me was the mystery that made the tree become significant to me. Especially later on when I understood the environment and understood how everything in the ecosystem is playing a role.

We may not understand it, but everything is playing a role. This fig tree was not only a habitat for birds and for animals. It was not only a beautiful tree providing shade, but it was also playing a role in the water system. And it was the reason this little stream was flowing, and my family could have clean drinking water.

IH: Looking back – what is the effect of your work on Kenya? Do you think that you have reversed this terrible environmental damage? You`ve certainly planted a lot of trees, but has this been enough?

WM: In areas where people have responded positively, especially among farming communities, the transformation of the landscape and the transformation of the people themselves has been revolutionary. To see ordinary people in charge of their environment; ordinary people concerned about their environment; ordinary people putting pressure on the government to protect, for example, forests. Forests are very important in our agricultural practices; we need rain, we need water, we need soil – and these are nourished by the rains that come from the forests. So it has been a wonderful experience to see these achievements.

Perhaps the next most important, besides the planting of the trees, has been the raising of awareness among ordinary people: the peasant farmers, the government officials, the policy-makers, not only in my country but within Africa – and now worldwide, to help in the collective raising of awareness. There are very many of us environmentalists, people working for human rights, people working for women`s rights and people working for environmental rights. And we have raised awareness to the point that the world is becoming more and more aware that the environment is very, very important. I think that maybe the culmination of this awareness was the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the environment. To have linked the sustainable management of the environment with good governance, respect for human rights, respect for the rule of law and peace.

IH: What exactly is that connection, though? I think many people who think of the environment think of it as either a scientific matter or a matter of culture. But they don`t make a connection between the environment and politics or the environment and peace, what exactly is that connection?

WM: Many of us are educated – or persuaded – to think in boxes. So we think separately about peace, and we think we can work for peace. So we think separately about human rights, and we think we can work for human rights – or environmental rights.

But what the Norwegian Nobel committee was challenging us to do was to rethink this paradigm. To rethink this mental attitude we have about separating things, and think holistically. Think of many conflicts – conflicts within your area, far away from your area and far away from your country – and ask yourself: why are those people fighting? Almost every war is over access and control of resources. What the Norwegian Nobel committee was saying is that we cannot enjoy peace on this planet if we do not learn to manage our limited resources responsibly and accountably; and if we do not learn to share these resources more equitably. Quite often we think that those who have the power, those who have the guns and those who have the technology can access any resource at the expense of anybody. But sooner or later those who are marginalised and denied access to those resources will somehow seek justice – economic justice and social justice – and that`s how the conflict ensues.

That is the linkage we need to understand. And that`s the linkage we often don`t make, partly because when we go to school that`s not what we are taught. We need to rethink peace and security, we need to expand the definition to include sustainable management of our resources and their equitable distribution, and that will only happen if we govern ourselves in a way that we respect human rights, we respect the rule of law and we respect the diversity of our human species. Because we are very diverse, but wherever we are, whoever we are, whether we are many or few, whether we are dominant or subdued, we need to feel that we matter, that we are important in the society where we belong.

IH: Western environmentalists are often criticised in the developing world, on the grounds that the west and its model of development carried an environmental cost, but on the whole people became much more prosperous. And now large developing countries such as India and China are following the same path. So when western environmentalists complain about the environmental costs of that development, people in India and China say: but you did it, why shouldn`t we? What would you say to those criticisms? Are you one of those environmentalists who are trying to hold back the development of poor countries?

WM: Obviously it is a very difficult question. It`s very easy to say that the west pursued a very destructive development process at a time when many of the resources in the world were at their disposal, partly because they had the political power – many were colonial powers – and they also had made great advances in science and technology. They also were able to accumulate a lot of wealth both within and outside their countries.

But I want to go back to that challenge that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was giving to the world in the year 2004, which emphasised that we have limited resources. Because we have limited resources, and we have a planet that has limited capacity, are we going to literally hang ourselves to death? Are we going to destroy ourselves? Are we going to compete with each other to see who will kill this planet faster? I think that would not be very wise.

I know it is very difficult to tell upcoming economies: “don`t do it.” But what we are saying is: let us look at alternative paths to development. [Let`s not] prevent achieving a high quality of life, but there is a difference between high quality of life, and high consumption patterns. The pattern that the west has developed is an extremely wasteful, consumptive lifestyle that clearly needs to be changed. They have to accept the resources are limited. If they are going to over-consume, they are actually over-consuming at the expense of other people. So, it is not just China or India or other upcoming economies that need to rethink – it is everybody. And it is especially those who have already made much progress and those who have adopted a very consumptive pattern.

From another perspective, right now, we are looking at the reports that have just come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They are saying that for the first time they are 90% certain that human activities are responsible for the warming up of the planet. These human activities include the burning of fossil fuels, the fossil fuels that are being engaged in the upcoming economies. If we are indeed at a point where our planet is threatened, do the Indians and the Chinese and other upcoming economies want to say: “let us sink together”? Are we going to follow the mistakes that were made by the western world? Or are we going to put pressure on the western world to cut down drastically on their emissions and to change their lifestyles, so that they can save themselves?

Africa is one of the areas that is going to be very adversely hit by climate change, yet Africa has contributed very little towards the problem. Are we saying Africa doesn`t matter? Are we saying other countries that haven`t reached that level of development don`t matter? I think that India, China, the US, Europe and all these highly-developed countries need to assume a moral responsibility towards the protection of the earth and life as we know it.

In 1977, Wangari Maathai founded the Green Belt movement, which has inspired many, often poor women in Africa to plant more than 30 million trees. In 2004 Professor Maathai became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue.net.

Homepage photo by Martin Rowe

To understand the total volume of a country`s economy at any period in time, we must look at its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). There are two main ways to calculate this: one can measure the country`s total revenue, in salaries, profits, interests and so on. Or one can measure the country`s expenditure: spending on consumer goods, investments, net export etc. These two numbers, of total revenue and expenditure, should be the same. GDP can express a country`s total economic output and its national income level quite accurately.

GDP is, at present, the accounting system for China`s national economy. In fact, every country in the world has adopted GDP as their accounting system, and it has become the standard for measuring the development level of a country.

But, as they say, there`s no such thing as a “free lunch.” Increases in a country`s total economic output will certainly mean an increase in the consumption of natural resources; pollution and environmental damage will also increase. GDP statistics only show the total economic revenue or output, and do not show environmental costs. There is no number that can quickly help us ascertain the ecological situation in a country. But the environment is an integral part of a country`s economy.

In the absence of ecological factors, a GDP figure cannot give a comprehensive picture of a nation`s economic situation. The numbers may even look ridiculous, since environmental pollution may in fact cause an increase in GDP. For example, in the case of a flood, a dam has to be constructed to prevent it. This will lead to an increase in investments and salaries, and therefore an increase in GDP. This is also true where pollution makes people ill; despite the obvious pain and loss, the increase in patients will lead to growth in the medical industry – and increase GDP.

In the past 20 years, China`s economic growth has been the fastest in the world. But how to calculate the cost of this development, in terms of loss in natural capital and environmental damage? Aside from the environmental angle, from a social point of view, GDP does not reflect quality of life, wealth distribution or income disparities between rich and poor. GDP statistics have some obvious defects, but no amendment has ever been made to them.

Since the middle of the last century, along with the development of the environmental movement and the rise of the concept of sustainable development, some economists and statisticians have tried to incorporate environmental factors in their calculations. This is what is called “green GDP.” It is the adjustment of GDP indicators to represent GDP after deducting environmental costs. Experts in China and the rest of the world have worked on this in recent years, and although some progress has been made, there are still many points of contention. Some countries have already adopted green GDP calculations on a trial basis, but there has never been a green GDP assessment model that is accepted by all nations. No government has ever announced their green GDP results.

Difficulties

Three decades of economic growth have significantly boosted China’s international standing. The country now boasts the world’s fastest growing economy, expanding by 10.7% in 2006, its fourth consecutive year of double-figure growth.

China’s rapid industrialisation has attracted the attention of the west. But over time, some of this focus has shifted to the impact that this growth is having on the environment. Both Chinese and international media increasingly view China as a classic example of failure in balancing the country`s economy and environment; a story seen repeated in other large developing countries such as Brazil and India.

But something different is happening in Jiangsu province. Situated on China’s east coast, the province has been described as the flagship of the country`s green development, and is now attracting international attention in its own right.

A leader in sustainable development

Located on the lower reaches of the Yangtze River and Huai River, and with a coastline on the Yellow Sea, Jiangsu is less than half the size of the UK, at 100,000 square kilometres, but has a population of 75 million – much higher than Britain’s 60 million.

Jiangsu`s contribution to China`s gross domestic product (GDP) has consistently ranked among the country`s top three provinces. The province`s economic growth in 2006 was 14.9%, China`s highest. Last year, it was also one of only two provinces that met national targets on pollution reduction and energy efficiency.

In 2006, emissions of major pollutants in Jiangsu province dropped by 3.3%, far surpassing the national target of 2%. Jiangsu`s power consumption per unit of GPD also fell by 4.02%, just over the target of 4%.

Four of the six cities that were first awarded the title of “Ecological City” by China`s State Council are in Jiangsu province. All four – Zhangjiagang, Changshu, Kunshang and Jiangyin – are among China’s ten richest city and county-level economies.

Eighteen cities in Jiangsu have been designated “Environmental Protection Cities”, one-fifth of the nationwide total and more than any other single province. Yangzhou was given the UN-HABITAT Scroll of Honour Award in 2006.

On March 21, Jiangsu Party Secretary Li Yuanchao spoke at a meeting held in the UK’s House of Commons, where he described the province as a role model for the country`s efforts to achieve a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. But in interviews he also pointed out that the province’s double-digit GDP growth has incurred heavy environmental costs.

Li discussed China’s most recent thinking on development. He explained how the country is seeking comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable growth; he also emphasised how the conservation of resources and environmental protection will allow growth that is both rapid and sustainable. In particular, Li stressed the importance of “four priorities”: wealth creation, science and education, environmental protection and conservation of resources.

Market forces