CHINA

The costs of economic development are perhaps nowhere more visible than in China. With some 20% of the world’s population subsisting on just 7% of its arable land, nature is already at odds with human development. Now, ecological nightmares, such as air pollution and water shortages, already visited upon China threaten to stunt industrial growth.

Yet, the economic growth threatened by pollution lies at the source of the problem, as Xia Kumbao of the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) points out. "The major source of environmental pollution is industrial growth."

But industrial growth is the cornerstone of China’s economic development, and so Peking has turned its efforts to containing rather than curtailing pollution. To this end, it has promoted an environmental and economic development strategy that links expenditure on direct environmental control to a percentage of GNP — currently set at almost 0.7% of the GNP, or Rmb 10 billion (US$2 billion) in the current Seventh Five-Year Plan. This figure is likely to be raised to between 0.8-1% of GNP in the Eighth Five-Year Plan.

Although this sum is lower than the 1-2% other comparable developing countries spend on environmental protection, many experts cite China’s environmental protection organisation and legal codes revised in 1989 as a sign of Peking’s seriousness. As one diplomat observed: "They’ve got the right policy, they’ve got the organisation and they’ve got the conciousness. They just don’t have the money."

Money is what China has demanded in exchange for compliance. In its recent acceptance of the Montreal Protocol, which calls for an end to the use of chlorofluorocarbons by developed countries by 2000 and developing countries by 2010, China made its commitment to international environmental protocols contingent on overseas aid and technology. More particularly, China wants clean technology, notably substitutes for the ozone-destroying freon gas that goes into the millions of refrigerators it makes each year.

In terms of aid, China already enjoys assistance from the UN’s Global Environment Facility, and by signing the Montreal Protocol it is eligible for aid from the fund estimated to reach US$200 million. But this sum has to be set against the Rmb 20.4 billion NEPA head Qu Geping has claimed China needs each year to simply control the current problem and the additional Rmb 200 billion needed to clean up past pollution — an estimate considered low by many Western experts.

China’s pollution control is coordinated by an environmental planning commission under the State Council and chaired by Education Minister U Tieying. It may be a reflection of Peking’s seriousness about pollution that the former head of the commission was Prime Minister Li Peng. The commission itself functions as a forum between environment and economic ministers and officials.

Technically, China’s environmental efforts are guided by the sub-ministerial  NEPA  and environmental protection bureaus (EPS) that. descend to the provincial and county level. The EPBs take administrative direction from the provincial governments and technical guidance from NEPA under a so-called dual leadership system. They have the power to fine, suspend and close environmental polluters.

But some diplomats have pointed to a lack of coordination between NEPA and the EPB5, which take their lead from the provincial or municipal authorities whom they may have to sanction. As a result, pollution figures by the EPB are not recognised by NEPA, creating the potential for discrepancies in reporting and difficulties in coordination.

The main approach China takes to environmental protection is punishment rather than prevention — fines amounted to Rmb 1.6 billion in 1990. In addition, China uses what it calls an aeight system" approach or guideline to environmental protection. It requires environmental impact assessments for new projects, which the 1989 Environmental Protection Law (EPL) changed to require EPS approval before local planning commission approval — a move intended to underscore environmental issues as a priority rather than a secondary consideration.

A second system requires the simultaneous design, construction and operation of environmental protection facilities along with the project itseif. A discharge fee system fines polluters for discharges in excess of state guidelines, though this can be amended under another system that allows for the purchase of pollution discharge permits. A further system involves the use of inspections to monitor pollution for a national index of cities.

China’s efforts at trying to contain pollution while doubling its GNP has inevitably produced mixed results. For example, in 1949 the country’s forest coverage stood at 13%. It later fell, before rising to 12.98% in 1988. However, in its 1990 figures, considered by Western experts to be accurate, NEPA placed waste gas emissions at 8.5 million standard m’, or 2.8% over the previous year, with carbon dioxide emissions standing at the same level.

Industrial waste water was 24.9 billion tons, 14% below 1989, though domestic sewage grew by 4% over 1989. Some 80% of China’s farmland is classified as medium- or low-yield compared with just 66% in 1989. Erosion and silting affect 15% of China, while desertification is calculated to be growing at a rate of 1,560 km² a year.

Coal provides 76% of China’s energy, and most Chinese coal is high in sulphur and low in quality. Indeed, the World Resources Institute ranks China fourth after the US, Soviet Union and Brazil in contributions to greenhouse gases — mainly due to burning coal. Western experts do not expect to see any medium-term change in China’s coal use.

The mounting costs of soil erosion and air and water pollution have forced Peking to concentrate its efforts on cleaning up the symptoms of pollution, rather than attacking its causes. In this context, long-standing plans to build a massive system of hydroelectric dams across the Yangtze River appear misplaced to many observers.

The estimated cost of building the Three Gorges Dam complex stands at some US$70 billion, and some experts have placed the final cost as high as US$100 billion. If such sums are available, many observers wonder if China has correctly assessed its priorities. This amount of money could be better employed, they argue, in investing in cleaner means of production, introducing catalytic converters for vehicle engines and building sewage plants to treat the present 80% of raw industrial and domestic effluent currently dumped into China’s rivers. 

-By Robert Nadelson In Peking

Source : Far Eastern Economic Review, 19 Sept, 1991

Back to Archive Page

Recycling Point Dot Com

(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved