On Care, Opposition, and River World Dynamics: The Nu River Anti-dam Campaign (2003−2016) in China

ABSTRACT

Crisis and care have been paired as complementary terms. The dialectical relationship invests itself within and across planetary biomes that struggle to thrive. China is a land of ancient heritage and abundant rivers, as well as a drive to modernize through hydropower and electricity. This essay focuses on the important case of the Nu River controversy to add to the corpus of care and crisis discourse in environmental communication. This example requires a move outside the over-determination of spaces that involve episodes of immediate stories of protracted engagement. In a study of how Chinese ENGOs and environmentalists fought hard in a 13-year-long battle to save China’s last natural river, I illustrate China’s ways of working through assertions of crisis, opposition to care, and an outcome opened by new care strategies for creating consensus.

KEYWORDS:

• ENGO
• environmental advocacy campaign
• hydropower
• crisis
• care strategy

With a root in a feminist study in the 1970s, care “has reentered the zeitgeist” in recent years (Hobart & Kneese, 2020). From everyday practices to climate change projects, “care is having a moment” (Pezzullo, 2022a). In the practical and academic world alike, there has been a growing recognition of what the role of care is and should be playing in society. “Care is the foundation to everyday life: as much an embodied practice as a normative moral framework. Without care society there would be no economy, culture, or politics” (Hall & Silver, 2020). A central role care should be playing in our society has been expanded by many studies.

Care appears to be a universal attraction, but the norms, values, fulfillments, and barriers to care differ. Judith Phillips reminds us that “Care is fundamental to our individual identity as this is played out in our social interactions and relationships. Care can be part of formal, loving, professional, and friendship relationships” (Phillips, 2007, p. 1). Phaedra C. Pezzullo recently proposed that the field of environmental communication should gear toward adding a new agenda of being a “care discipline” that regenerates “creative communication for a more just and vibrant future” in addition to its former role of being a “crisis discipline,” which reacts “against ecological and political injustices” (Pezzullo & de Onís, 2020a, p. 61). This new agenda looks beyond challenges posed by the environment; rather, it emphasizes an “ethic of care” – the field’s new ethical obligation “to honor the people, places, and nonhuman species who share our world” (Pezzullo & de Onís, 2017, p. 13). This care ethics “deepens our appreciation for our collective interdependence and our capacity to map new spaces for resistance” (Pezzullo & de Onís, 2020, p. 72). The emphasis on care offers a useful new perspective to read environmental problems not just as a crisis to solve, but more as a care to imagine.

Care needs to be valued and appreciated in its abundant manifestation. It is not enough to announce deficits or engage in a totalizing critique of care; rather, alternatives must be recovered, re-directed, or promoted. An ethic of care requires that thinking take up boldly critique and also engage in reweaving, knitting together, and appreciating rich, diverse narratives. Drawing on Arturo Escobar’s work on pluriversal politics of Global South, Pezzullo argues care ethics can implicate “emergent, dominant, and residual ethics” (Pezzullo, 2022b, p. 508). Drawing on my work on the ways our understanding of “publics” vary across Western and Eastern cultures, Pezzullo on her own and with me challenges us to think about the politics of exporting theory and heuristics into different cultures without consideration of the contextual politics and power relations involved (Liu, 2011, 2020; Liu & Goodnight, 2008, 2016; Liu & Lu, 2020; Pezzullo, 2022a; Pezzullo & Liu, 2022). Just like the vase nature still has its major part undiscovered by us human, so is the many environmental practices worldwide and the stories they entail.

I agree that crisis and care are complementary terms. The dialectical relationship invests itself within and across planetary biomes that struggle to thrive. Communication complexity increases as the state, market, and social entrepreneurs work to offer their special vectors of care, with ideas of who and how to be cared for. In developing China, what does care for the environment mean? What does an environmental crisis entail? What relation does it have with care?

To answer these questions, I believe we need to consider the broader context of environmental advocacy in China. In the past three decades, China's Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations (ENGOs) have gradually gained rights as social organizations, experimenting their way into the political arena in China with both caution and care by practicing activism within the boundary of China’s political systems. While increasing academic attention has been paid to China’s green movement and ENGO advocacy, a focal question is raised: “whether and to what extent have ENGOs helped enhance China’s green movement?” The answers are mixed. Some argue that ENGOs’ role in engaging the public and on environmental governance is quite limited and “marginal” (Tang & Zhan, 2008; Xie & Van Der Heijden, 2010), others believe that they have made major influence in raising citizen’s environmental awareness, changing business practice, and advocating for policy change (Han, 2014; Liu, 2011; Yang, 2005). To my observation, in the early years, ENGOs did raise the public’s awareness of nature, animals, and ecology through educational activities. In recent years, however, they played more important roles on policy. In the last decade, the Chinese state made and revised a series of environmental laws and polices such as the New Environmental Law in 2015 and the Wild Life Protection law in 2022. ENGOs’ voice was frequently heard in the law revision process. Besides, they also exerted increasing influence on the monitor of environmental policy implementation. Indeed, over the years, the results of ENGO activism have been mixed. There are many successes and failures. The Nu River campaign, while being unique by itself, illustrates an important successful case. I will first summarize that controversy and then illustrate how crisis and care offer different ways of engaging the rhetorical stakes.

Environmental advocacy and the Nu River dam debate

As a brief background, China’s development and use of hydropower experienced an accelerated stage in the twenty-first century. To cater to the country’s goal of switching from coal-based energy to a renewable energy structure, governments at all levels are enthusiastic about developing hydrapower. In 2004, the installed capacity of China's hydropower exceeded 100,000 MW (million watts), ranking first in the world. In 2015, this number tripled, exceeding 300,000 MW (Li et al.,2018). Meanwhile, “Some 27,000 Chinese rivers are, quite simply, gone. They’ve vanished due to climate change, the over-extractino of groundwater, rapid urbanization, poor management, water and soil loss, contamination and damming,” as the organization International Rivers states (Nu River, n.d.). All this information makes the Nu River case unique as it is considered the last “wild” or “natural” free-flowing river without a hydropower station built on the trunk stream.

The Nu River (also called Salween river, or the River of Anger, as Nu is the homophon of “Anger” in Chinese) is a river mostly in Yunnan Province southern China, it lasts about 1800 miles, originates from the Tibetan Plateau, flows across a mountainous watershed of 125,000 square miles, and extends into China and two southeast countries: Myanmar and Thailand. The Nu River flows dramatically across a broad basin of natural beauty and rich biodiversity, and it is recognized as a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) approved site of natural heritage.

In June 2003, a plan to construct 13 large hydropower stations on the trunk stream of the Nu River was initiated by the Huadian Corporation, the project developer for the Nu River dam, and it was approved by the State Development and Reform Commission. Immediately, activists and ENGOs collectively organized a campaign to protest against the hydroelectric dam plan. In the following months, ENGOs led by “Green Earth Volunteers” and “Friends of Nature” organized opposing voices through collecting signatures, hosting photographic exhibitions, and salons, and sending writing statements to the government (Li et al., 2018). These opposing actions started the long and hard battle. Like the long and winding Nu River itself, the campaign lasted for a total of 13 years. As the official decision on dam construction was made, tabled, re-made, and temporarily tabled, the anti-dam building side fought hard, and eventually pressured authorities to permanently shelve the plan in 2016.¹ According to the state’s new developmental goal (of building National Parks), one of China’s first National Parks – the Nu River National Park would be built on the Nu River Grand Canyon.

Throughout the campaign, the parties drawn in were quite diverse. They included basically the hydropower company “huadian” group, pseudo-scientists (represented by Fang Zhouzi), social elites, engineers, and some media as the pro-dam side, and the ENGOs, environmentalists, scientific experts as the anti-dam side. The government bodies may appear on either side. In different levels of the government, different positions were found. In general, the Yunnan province government is in the pro-dam side (although it later switched to the anti-dam side), and even within one level, there are different positions and opinions in terms of dam building. The central government bodies, mainly the State Environmental Protection Administration, the democratic parties, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Body are on the anti-dam side.

The battle, however, does not simply involve two opposing sides: the pro-dam side and the oppositional con-dam side. A variety of parties, including ENGOs, the central government, the local government, the power company, and the publics, were involved in this long-term battle. All were engaged and each tried to influence the decision-making process with their efforts and often distinct goals in mind across the political map. The goals are diverse ranging from economic (power company), ecological (ENGOs), energy (central government), personal (local) interest, to political concern (the state) (Han, 2014). Such divergent goals often put the ENGOs engage in a strategic partnership with the government and occasionally wrestling as opponents (through confrontational thought of mild style), while other times acting as friends (through cooperation), depending on the stage of the event and in regard to different levels of the government. At other times, ENGOs engaged in a tricky triangular relationship with the central state and local state, balancing across their perspectives. As a result, power often flows among different parties at different times of priority, prolonging the course of the fight.

Revisiting the Nu River controversy through crisis and care

Whether or not to build hydropower stations on the main stream of the Nu River became a heated fight and controversy, which undoubtedly speaks of a major crisis for China’s last natural river. Yet, this controversy also could be reread as a matter of care: how different sides expressed care as their motivation for environmental advocacy and the care that was involved in pausing the hydroelectric dam project.

The controversy focused on the following key dimensions of crisis: would the dam construction cause serious ecological impact and/or geological disasters? How to deal with local immigrants (minorities) and their cultural diversity if the dam was built? Was the ENGO’s action a “pseudo-environmental protection” act that tried to interfere with the nation’s green development goal? And was it a “political” issue that challenged the status quo of the state? The ecology, people, culture, and state seem to be the objects of crisis relevant to this public controversy. As the campaign went through different stages, the controversy switched focus to different dimensions, which I’ll now analyze as aspects of care.

In the beginning stage of this controversy, the pro-dam building side framed its position as caring for the environment and the economy by claiming they were developing renewable energy (as opposed to fossil fuels, which were contributing to the climate crisis) and creating employment opportunities for the local poor region. It all made sense.

For the anti-dam building side, however, the ecological value of the river and the rights and well-being of local villages have been the objects of caring. As Hobart and Kneese stated, care is fundamental to social movements and it can be used as a critical survival strategy (2020). Anti-dam advocates worked collaboratively and employed various tactics that I am calling caring strategies.

In the early stage, for example, anti-dam advocates used a rather firm and resolute approach to confront the pro-dam building side. Activists and ENGOs organize collective action to fight for the rights of local natives and nature. A series of proposals with voluntary signing were organized by ENGOs and sent to different government divisions and even to UNESCO. Beijing ENGOs, led by Green Earth Volunteers and Friends of Nature, hold lectures, forums, exhibitions, and other activities to arouse public attention on the huge negative impact of the potential hydropower stations on the local ecological system. Beijing and Yunnan NGOs worked collectively and closely to express their deep care for the river and the people who live by the river. According to Mr. Yu, founder of Green Watershed, the major Yunnan local ENGO actor for the battle, one care strategy they used is building strong alliance with each other for their work. For instance, they created a website called China River Network (which was later renamed China River Watch Alliance), which allowed them to exchange information and campaign experience about the Nu River and Southwest Basins, as well as other Basins in China. The network also helped promote collaboration among NGOs, individual scientists, academics, and journalists (Interview with Mr. Yu).

Another care strategy involved is doing solid community work by encouraging local community participation and empowering local minority people to advocate for their rights. Mr. Yu and his ENGO focused on grounding their work in local community. They encouraged and mobilized local villagers around the Nu River to participate in advocating the issues. In February 2004, he organized local villagers to visit impoverished communities near other dam-building areas and educated them to claim legal interests (as potential immigrants for the river project) while participating in river protection activities (caring for the people). According to Mr. Yu, Green Watershed developed scientific and grassroots methods to advocate the campaign. In specific, these ways are called “Power to Community” (ENGO helps empower the local people), “Power with” (ENGO work with the community to solve problems), and Power within (ENGO empowers locals to become the masters of their problems). In addition, they combined the use of media with the community work to empower local villagers. They filmed a documentary called The Voice of Nu River to show the miserable life of immigrants from a previous hydropower station site. They made 500 DVDs with this film and widely circulated to the local villagers of the Nu Rivr basin, which had a great effect (Interview with Mr. Yu).

ENGOs not only adopted various caring strategies to care for the river and the local people, but also did it from the angle of environmental justice. That is, they focused on who was benefitting and who was paying for the dam. While the hydropower company was positioned to benefit the most from building the dam, they argued that the local people were potentially going to suffer from losing their homes without proper compensation. Thus, they fight hard for the people.

With these efforts, in February 2004, a temporary success was finally achieved when the dam development plan was tabled by Premier then Wen Jiabao as he instructed, “We should carefully consider and make a scientific decision about major hydro-electric projects like this that have aroused a high level of concern in society.” It is telling that the government’s statement called for “careful” reconsideration.

But this is far from the end of the fight, and 2004 is just a year that divided the battle into two different stages. The pro-dam side especially gained force after 2005. Different attempts were made on to restart the project, for instance, an unofficial news in 2008 revealed that some pre-dam building project had “silently” took off by the “Huadian group.” In January 2011, the National Energy Bureau announced that decision to build hydropower stations on the Nu River has been made. The pro-dam side framed their cause as caring for economic development, and accused ENGOs as anti – developmental while lobbying the government. In January 2005, a question about “whether human should respect nature” led to contentious debate between environmental protection activists and social commentators. The anti-dam movement was widely questioned, and Green Watershed was banned.

Faced with this, ENGOs adopted another caring strategy – they learned to switch to a rather mild style of contestation. They emphasized caring for the ecological system – the river, the land, and the biodiversity through scientific and legal approaches. Rather than engaging in unreasoned argument with the pro-dam building side, they focused on cooperating with the central government on promoting a more democratic decision-making process based on legal procedure for large-scale development project in China (Johnson, 2010). They urged the Yunnan local government and the Huadian Corporation to conduct a proper EIA (environmental impact assessment) to involve the public and various stakeholders in discussing the social and environmental impact of the building plan (Han, 2014). They also combine environmental protection with the practical issue of poverty alleviation by suggesting the development of the SPA (social participation evaluation) system.

In January 2013, the hydropower stations on the Nu River were restarted again. The fight continued after its 10-years course. Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, since 2013 has seen nationwide action on environmental protection in terms of environmental laws and business initiatives. Under this grand narrative of “Lucid Water and Green Mountain is Golden and Silver Mountain,” the Yunnan government gradually changed their attitude to be on the anti-dam side. The anti-dam side again switched to rather firm strategy, and grabbed the political opportunity, they continued to protest against the dam-building plan firmly, but strategically. As time went by, a key aspect of their caring strategy involved utilizing complicated relationships and conflict of interest between government bodies, and cultivating informal information networks with senior officials. They studied thoroughly government policy, responsibilities, functions, individual environmental protection preference of governmental officials, and always had an ear attuned to the changing political climate of China. By gaining key knowledge of such, they were able to advocate strongly in several key meetings before the government made key decisions. In the summer of 2016, Green Watershed held a meeting with the Water Conservancy Department, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and the Academy of Water Resources, to revisit the negative impact of hydropower development on the local minorities’ interests and the world heritage site, and firmly demanded public participation in evaluating the dam or an end to the project. In November 2016, the central state published the 13th Five-year Plan for Hydropower Development. The original plan of the Nu River project was deleted. Permanently, the Nu River dam became a history.

Concluding reflections

The Nu River fight of 13 years eventually succeeded with the plan to build a dam on China’s last natural river permanently sheltered. Opposing voices that cared about the life of the river successfully pushed for the fulfillment and revision of the EIA act. This resolution exerted a strong influence on major environmental and energy policy decisions in Beijing. In addition to illustrating several caring strategies of how the anti-dam side fights for the case, I have also shared three positions of care in just the opening of the controversy: the initial pro-dam care for renewable energy and jobs; the initial anti-dam care for the river’s ecology and local communities; and the government’s call to “carefully” reconsider the decision to permit the dam. From this perspective, the controversy was animated not by a lack of appreciation for crisis or care, but by competing perspectives of care. The Nu River campaign is an example of how Chinese ENGOs initiated fostering an ethic of care about the interconnection of local people, the land, and responsible economic development, and eventually win over the state’s agreement as well. In the Nu River case, caring for the environment(river) implicates making sustainable arrangements for the people and the environment together in the right way first – not just for national goals of the need to shift to renewable energy, for example, but also for local needs to care for the region’s ecological balance and cultural survival.

The case of the Nu River controversy, then, speaks of a different model for consideration in environmental communication. Di Chiro applauded climate justice scholar and advocate Henry Shue on his call for a human right approach to climate change solutions: the argument is that any global energy transition policy framework should first care about the “subsistence emissions” – which count for the consumption need of fossil energy of the poor nation (Di Chiro, 2019, p. 1). Following the same line of logic, in the Nu River battle, Chinese ENGOs employed a creative caring strategy to fight for the “subsistence” of the disadvantaged local people. This speaks of an important ethic of care – basic human survival needs must be cared for first before any practical developmental/economic policy (in the name of environment) is made. This helps put the national development on the right track as well. Eventually, “caring for climate, caring for earth, and caring for people should be at the centre of economic value, not at the margins” (Di Chiro, 2019, p. 6).

Care is a vector that takes the study of communication beyond human interrelationships to appreciate the interrelation among sentient creatures of every kind. Indeed, in studying the forms of communication in the vast universe new ways of caring may open and old stereotypes melt into the past. In a world of populations displaced, biomes turned into cancer allies and dead zones under extreme weather, the need for renovation, renewal, and revival of communication becomes an ethical imperative – so is the concept of care.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Fund of the Chinese Ministry of Education for the research titled “The construction of discourse theory and empirical research on China’s focal environmental issues based on the perspective of environmental communication”, under grant number [18YJA860007].

Notes

1 While the plan to build hydropower stations on the trunk stream of the Nu River was permanently shelved in 2016, some small private enterprises built dozens of small hydropower stations on the tributaries of the Nu River, which are now still in operation. However, requests to build more small hydropower stations on the tributaries were rejected by the government in 2016.