CHAPTER EIGHT

Regional Conservation Planning in the Source Area of the Yangtze River (Suojia Township): A Case Study

Introduction (back to top)

Situated in the center of the Tibetan plateau, Suojia Township provides an ideal geographic setting to examine the intersection of conservation and development in China. At the local level, the township and county governments as well as the first grassroots organization in the province, the Qingzang Gaoyuan Huanchangjiangyuan Shengtai Jingji Cujinghui (that is, the Upper Yangtze Integrated Conservation and Development Organization, or the Upper Yangtze Organization for short), have made economic development and environmental protection their dual priority goals. At the higher provincial and national levels, economic growth and natural resource protection also both are considered to be extremely important. Indeed, 70 percent of China’s fixed asset investments and foreign loans this year (2000) has been designated for use in the poorer “western hinterlands” (Jin 2000), and all levels of government in China now pay considerable attention to the ecological conditions of the source areas of the Yellow, Yangtze, and Mekong rivers, especially since the devastating floods of 1998 (He 1997, Liu 1998, Hen 1999). Furthermore, an enormous region in southern Qinghai recently was designated by central (national) authorities as a multiple-use nature reserve to protect regional grassland ecology (‘China plans…’ 2000, ‘Qinghai to build…’ 2000). Clearly, the integration of environmental protection (biodiversity protection) and socio-economic development is an important priority for all the stakeholders in the region.

This chapter presents a unique case study of biodiversity conservation on the Tibetan plateau by examining the current activities and plans of the local government, as well as the formation, current activities, and future plans of the Upper Yangtze Organization. The work of the government and the local organization largely are integrated in Suojia through the influence of one person – namely, Drashi Dorje Hashil (or Zhaduo, for short) – who is both the Party Secretary of Suojia and the principal founder and Director of the Upper Yangtze Organization. Of course, Zhaduo is assisted greatly in this innovative and strategic work by a number of colleagues.

In a first instance, the broad context for conservation is reviewed in this chapter. Second, the recent emergence of civil society in China (i.e., non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, and other formal and informal interest groups) is described briefly. Third, a concrete example of community-based, “bottom-up” biodiversity conservation on the Tibetan plateau is described by providing detailed information about Suojia and the Upper Yangtze Organization, as well as by documenting my own involvement in the development of local activities and plans. Some of the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in the present effort to achieve regional sustainability and to protect the native biodiversity of this special part of the Tibetan plateau also are discussed in the case study. Ecologically sound recommendations for future conservation efforts in this region of Qinghai thus are beginning to emerge.

Biodiversity Protection (back to top)

Biodiversity conservation (and development) in China (back to top)

The maintenance of biodiversity now is regarded worldwide as an essential ingredient for long-term ecological sustainability. The official strategy for biodiversity conservation in China is explained in Chapter 15: Conservation of Biodiversity of the national White Paper on China’s Population, Environment, and Development in the 21^st Century (Administrative Centre for China’s Agenda 21, 1994; URL: http://www.acca21.edu.cn/chnwp15.html, viewed 12 April 2000):

“The policy for biodiversity conservation in China is ‘laying equal stress on both the development and utilization and the conservation and protection of natural resources’ and ‘he who develops, conserves; he who utilizes, compensates; he who destroys, restores.’”

However, as Bradbury et al. (1996) explain, although the importance of the environment now is recognized in theory in China, in practice, “economic development [still] is the nation’s principal objective and [often is deemed unable to] accommodate environmental objections.” Fortunately, though, the situation in the source area of China’s great rivers appears to be an exception, and may even indicate a fresh start for resource protection in China with the environment now considered of primary or equal importance, instead of only secondary, to development (‘China plans…’ 2000, ‘Qinghai to build…’ 2000).

Clearly, whether recognized or not, there are limits to growth (World Conservation Union et al. 1991, World Resources Institute et al. 1992, Smil 1993), and ecological sustainability implies “low external input” (Westing 1996, Lawrence 1997). The shift in China toward a more ecological approach to development therefore is an encouraging change. In the Tibetan plateau region, the conservation of biodiversity is important not only because it enhances regional sustainability, but the adoption or the maintenance of ecologically sustainable livelihoods also allows for the “elimination of subsidies [which] is a matter of pride to the Tibetans and [a matter] of economics to the Han” (Environment Science and Technology 1998d). Biodiversity protection is a win-win solution that benefits local to regional, national, and even international stakeholders (‘Forging partnerships…’ 1997, Miller and Craig 1997, Stevens 1997b, Zeppel 1998).

Key strategies for successful conservation (back to top)

Many of the key challenges to effective conservation, however, are not biological and scientific, but rather social and economic (Schaller 1998). Drawing on the experience of IUCN - The World Conservation Union, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), and the World Resources Institute (WRI), Carew-Reid (1993) has summarized some key lessons learned over the past few years for successful conservation:

“[Conservation] strategies are not one-off events. They should rather be action-based, building on priority areas where government and people are already committed. …

Strategies should be seen as a continuous, cyclical process and integrated into conventional development cycles. They are not just something to be ‘added on’. …

Successful strategies are not possible unless the capacity to carry them through is built up at the earliest stage. …

Centralized planning and decentralized implementation don’t mix. …

Participation needs to increase as a strategy develops. … In poor local communities strategies may first need to identify and meet immediate needs, so that benefits can be felt.

Strategies need to be processes of action and reflection. This means that monitoring and evaluation are vital. The appraisal of strategies needs to stress the way things are done as well as the outcome. …

Donors need to operate at a level appropriate to local conditions, and to build on local initiatives. … Donors should forget about ‘model’ strategies and support tailor-made solutions. Low-level, continuous external backing over a long period is almost always much better than short, high level, one-off inputs.”

All of the above components of a broad comprehensive conservation strategy already have been included, to varying degrees, in the conservation efforts currently in progress in Suojia township (see below). Nonetheless, finding appropriate ways to encourage local community participation in conservation, and to avoid the danger of being satisfied with passive or manipulative participation (sensu Mowforth and Munt 1998), remains a real challenge. Indeed, it is the joint issues of local participation and a genuine sense of ownership in conservation (integrated with sustainable development) that perhaps are the most significant factors that will lead to – or conversely, that may hinder – successful biodiversity protection on the Tibetan plateau.

Putting (local) people first (back to top)

Many researchers, environmentalists, planners, and community development workers have found that “putting people first” is an extremely important, even essential, part of successful, long-term conservation:

“The bottom line is that effective, long-term conservation of biodiversity can be greatly assisted by ‘putting people first.’ This means listening to their concerns, encouraging their ability to organize themselves, and then addressing their needs… Actions taken at the community level are becoming the keystone of global efforts to conserve biodiversity” (Wilson 1996).

“A key to the success of conservation projects outside of protected areas is that they address the needs and aspirations of resource users.” (Carpenter 1998)

“The principle of beginning where the people are is crucial… Their value system must be quickly learned and respected so that you can dialogue with them (Freire 1970) … Hang in and try to move with the grain of the community as it raises and drops and raises its issues at its pace, and as new people become involved and leadership develops and broadens.” (Lee 1997)

Although it tends to be “against the normal survival instincts of governments to want to share power and responsibility” or to “use their power to give away some of their power” (Bayon 1996), it now is clear that “sustainability planning must be community-led and consensus-based because the central issue is will, not expertise; only a community-based process can overcome the political, bureaucratic and psychological barriers to change” (Doering 1994; emphasis added). At the same time, though, adopting or encouraging a bottom-up (grassroots) approach to change does not means that local, regional, or national leaders are no longer involved in the process, as some leaders may fear. Rather, the opposite is true, since “bottom-up, citizen-led processes must be combined with top-down government support if plans are going to be implemented and activities sustained because it is still only governments that have the regulatory and taxing powers to secure the transition to sustainability” (Doering 1994).

As McNeely (1990) explains, it also is imperative that we begin to “recognize that our existing governmental institutions and procedures [often] are not evolving nearly as quickly as our environmental problems emerge, so that new institutions may be required to design and implement [more appropriate] integrated development plans and programmes.” The development of civil society, or the growth of the non-governmental sector, is one area that has contributed significantly to successful conservation efforts worldwide. Thus both top-down and bottom-up approaches to change are helpful to adequately plan and implement integrated conservation and development projects, and both should be encouraged.

Power plays in project planning (back to top)

While it is recognized that both top-down and bottom-up approaches may be necessary to ensure that an area’s resources are used sustainably and that its native biodiversity protected, there still are several pitfalls uniquely associated with the notion of local community participation. As Mowforth and Munt (1998) explain, “the principle of local participation … is easier to promote on paper from a distance than it is to put into practice at the local level.” One of the main challenges is that there are many different ways that the idea of participation can be understood. Pretty’s (1995) “typology of participation” is particularly helpful to determine the type or degree of local participation present in (or desired for) any given conservation or development project. According to Mowforth and Munt (1998),

“The types of participation [identified in Pretty’s typology] range from manipulative participation, in which virtually all the power and control over the development or proposal lie with people or groups outside the local community [and thus participation is simply a pretence], to self-mobilisation, in which the power and control over all aspects of the development rest squarely with the local community. The latter type does not rule out the involvement of external bodies or assistants or consultants, but they are present only as enablers rather than as directors and controllers of the development.”

Based on his experience in several African nations, Huntington (1988) found that a “socialist model [of development] tends to view local participation [only] as a means of mobilizing and channeling the energies of the masses to serve centrally defined developmental needs of the nation,” a viewpoint still shared by many decision-makers in China today. In contrast, the vaguer Western notions of participation range from an idealism of local people assuming “their own responsibility for economic development” to a “consultation process” to simple “contributions of free menial labor to reduce the costs of constructing public buildings” (Huntington 1988; also see Pretty 1995).

The most important question, then, is: Development and conservation, by whom and for whom? Indeed, the most important issue is power, since “development [i.e., change] everywhere and at all times involves some people gaining and others losing” (Attwood et al. 1988). Power struggles can easily occur at all levels, at the international level as well as at the local or regional levels.

As Jasanoff (1993) explains, even “science” involves power, since “when it comes to studying the causes of complex environmental problems, there is almost always more than one way to skin the scientific cat. And these choices are not themselves scientific. They’re deeply social, cultural, and ethical.” Working in the Indian Himalayan region, Datta and Virgo (1998) also found that “actual priorities perceived by villagers through participatory (PRA-based) planning frequently differ from ‘targets’ and priorities defined by outside planners.” Therefore, the main limiting factor in the ability of most conservation projects to involve local communities is that most projects are driven by external values and goals (Carpenter 1998), particularly “First World” values and goals (Mowforth and Munt 1998).

For example, even though the IUCN – The World Conservation Union’s guidelines call for consultation and addressing local people’s needs, as Stevens (1997b) explains,

“indigenous peoples’ settlement and land use are to be supported only when they are in accordance with the larger objectives of the protected area and, in the case of wilderness areas, perhaps only when they continue to be an expression of a ‘traditional’ way of life…”

Likewise, Mowforth and Munt (1998) draw attention to the fact that

“conservation measures designed to maintain ecological biodiversity undertaken by organizations such as Conservation International have frequently been ‘contradicted’ by the priorities and aspirations of local communities attempting to secure their livelihoods. … [Yet] the global concerns and consciousness of First World citizens are played out at a local scale; their ‘will’ is imposed upon communities thousands of miles away.”

In light of this, Gray (1991, in Stevens 1997b) concludes with the ominous prediction that

“as long as environmentalists [continue] to seek monolithic solutions to problems of conservation and paternalistically project their ideas about protection onto [local] peoples without trying to understand their perspectives, the world will end up with neither conserved areas nor [local] peoples.”

Clearly, then, there is a definite “geography of power” (Massey 1995) in the arena of biodiversity conservation. Part of the solution for reconciling different worldviews lies in a simple, humble acceptance “that First World agencies, organizations and institutions do not have all the right solutions,” and that we, conservation biologists of the First World, must try to avoid the serious pitfalls by which “Third World local communities [often] have emerged as commodities utilised by [international] NGOs … to secure grants and aid, and on [whose] behalf widespread fundraising [is] undertaken” (Mowforth and Munt 1998, emphasis added). Instead of seeking “their” participation in “our” projects, we rather should seek the formation of genuine, long-lasting, and equal partnerships for global conservation. In this way, local participation will be accepted both as a method of change and as a goal in its own right (that is, for the empowerment of local communities). This broader understanding of “participation” is significant because there is both intrinsic and practical value in local participation in development and conservation projects.

“It is at this level [i.e., community level] that ordinary people can best articulate a holistic concept of their needs [and] at this level, people are directly aware of community problems and unused resources – that is, they are able to match development plans with existing and potential resources. Self-interest intersects with self-reliance and self-management to produce possibilities for development” (Kaufman and Alfonso 1997).

Civil Society in China (back to top)

The emergence of environmental NGOs in China (back to top)

In China, local participation in decision-making is most evident in village-level elections and, more recently, in the development of civil society. In areas where government authorities do accept increasing levels of local autonomy, however, it is primarily for the sake of expediency, mostly to revive collapsed economies (Kelliher 1997) or to address other specific local needs. Nevertheless, whatever the motives, now there is increasing opportunity in China for grassroots voices – the voices of individuals and communities – to be expressed and heard.

In Muldavin’s (1997) study of policy reform and environmental degradation in Heilongjiang province in northeast China, it is even suggested that locally based collective action may be essential to achieve sustainability:

“We are now able to identify multiple Chinas – multiple development models and paths occurring simultaneously (Muldavin 1992). … Alternate pathways are emerging, for example, a shift to markets within a predominantly collective economy allowing peasants to employ long-term decision-making strategies in production alongside short-term market ones. … A wide range of options are already in place to deal with the problems facing rural China – all of them better than a complete turn to a market economy composed of millions of small producers. … [Most notably, the present] situation provides space for dialogue between different state institutions and independent social movements – the development of civil society. … Taking into account the immense heterogeneity of China, locally-based collective action and long-term production strategies must be promoted if the difficult problems of sustainability are to be resolved.” (emphases added)

Back at the level of the village, there has been a significant move in the last two decades toward greater local autonomy, or at least toward self-government or self-management. Kelliher (1997) explains:

“In 1982, China’s newly revised Constitution briefly mentioned [for the first time] a grass-roots organ called the ‘villagers’ committee’ (cunmin weiyuanhui), which would be elected by village residents to manage public affairs. At first this change seemed meaningless. … But, in early 1984, the Ministry of Civil Affairs – backed by Peng Zhen, the powerful chairmain of the Standing Committee of the National People’s congress – began work on a law that would make the innocuous passage in the Constitution a reality. Peng, despite his reputation as a conservative, was in earnest about granting self-government to villages. … Eighteen of China’s thirty provincial-level units succeeded in holding elections in at least some of their villages in 1990. … Ministry of Civil Affairs officials stand out among the proponents of village self-government, with central officials appearing somewhat more enthusiastic than their provincial counterparts. Conspicuous among the foes of self-government are rural office-holders at the county level and below, especially within the townships.”

Ironically, popularly elected village governments may simply be one of the few (if not the only) means to “make villagers obey policies they abhor” such as compulsory production quotas, taxes, and birth control (Kelliher 1997). With a quick “sleight of hand,” village-level democracy in China has detached self-determination from the more acceptable, pragmatic notion of self-government, and thus village elections are primarily a “means for getting villagers to do what the state wants” (Kelliher 1997) through the increased sense of obligation that comes from even a “passive participation” and “participation by consultation” in the decision-making process (Pretty 1995). Nonetheless, although some proponents for greater local autonomy feel that village elections do not give sufficient voice to the masses, and that state laws on other forms of association also are too restrictive (Human Rights in China 1998), the degree of grassroots participation officially encouraged by the government does give rise to considerable hope for a positive trend in community involvement in development and conservation endeavors (see, e.g., the Administrative Centre for China’s Agenda 21, 1994; Chapter 20: Public Participation in Sustainable Development, URL: http://www.acca21.edu.cn/chnwp20a.html, viewed 18 May 2000).

The second primary area of community involvement in decision-making in China is the formation of voluntary “social organizations.” Knup’s (1997) overview is especially insightful:

“Perhaps the key question which preoccupies many Chinese leaders is how to keep the economy growing while addressing new social challenges and preventing unrest. … One important outgrowth of China’s reforms is a recognized need to address social concerns but a limited state capacity to do so. This situation has compelled the Chinese government to seek alternative ways to address these problems, thereby creating space for the emergence of social organizations or NGOs. As long as these organizations address problems deemed valid by the state [such as environmental protection], and in a manner deemed appropriate by the state, some public space will continue to exist and perhaps even grow. However, the situation is fluid: NGOs in China must tread warily in a vague and uncertain political climate which keeps a careful eye on potential threats to social stability….” (emphasis added)

Environmental organizations in particular have proliferated in China over the past few years (Knup 1997, Viederman 1998), and it is estimated that over 200,000 social organizations are registered nationwide (Knup 1997). Several kinds of organizations have developed, from unregistered neighborhood groups to individual-organized NGOs, to government-organized organizations or “state-led civil society” (Brook and Frolic 1997, Knup 1997, Viederman 1998, Crane 2000). All these organizations, however, remain only semi-independent of the state because they are obliged to work within the broad purview of government goals. A second limitation on civil society is that only one organization can work legally within any given field at a given administrative level (Knup 1997, Human Rights in China 1998). The most important contribution of civil society lies therefore, not in contesting government goals, but rather in its ability to focus specific attention on finding new or more effective ways to achieve specific government goals, as well as to provide a forum for individuals and communities to be heard on the relevant issues. The Upper Yangtze Organization, for example, focuses only on integrating environmental protection (conservation) and sustainable development in the alpine grasslands in the source area of the Yangtze River. The organization leaders also have chosen to pursue their (and the government’s) goals in close cooperation with the local pastoral population in ways similar to Pretty’s (1995) classification of “interactive participation” and community “self-mobilization.”

Special characteristics of the Tibetan plateau (back to top)

Some unique characteristics of the Tibetan plateau environment, both the natural and the cultural or social environment, impact the way that government and non-governmental institutions should work in places like Suojia (i.e., in remote, high altitude, pastoral regions of the Tibetan plateau) to ensure long-term successful development and biodiversity conservation. To date, most development efforts have focused on technological interventions that aim to “improve” the productive capacity of the grasslands (see, e.g., Huang 1992, Lang et al. 1997, Liu and Wang 1998, Han 1999). Cultural and environmental factors of the “sustainability equation,” on the other hand, largely have been ignored (Wu Ning 1997, Miller 1998, Su 1998, Smith and Foggin 1999). Similar development patterns and omissions have been detrimental to many grassland ecosystems, and the peoples they support, around the world (Ellis and Swift 1988, Köhler-Rollefson 1997, ‘China plans…’ 2000). Many aspects of the environmental and cultural contexts of the Tibetan plateau have been discussed in detail in the earlier background chapters of this dissertation.

Regarding local traditions, or the way of life, of Tibetan nomads, Wu Ning (1997) specifically notes the important linkage between nomadism, biodiversity, and sustainability:

“In a nomadic society biodiversity provides a fundamental base to nomadism and to the overall economic systems. It is the source of resiliency and regeneration, necessary for the sustainability of nomadic systems. It is the ultimate basis for local self-sufficiency, and a global asset, bringing benefits to people in terms of material welfare in more ways than we realize.”

In a similar vein, Ellis and Swift (1988) also suggest that some local traditions, such as seasonal movements between pastures, must not be ignored: “A cautious approach to pastoral development is to ask if intervention strategies can be formulated which will build upon the best aspects of traditional systems, rather than imposing wholesale alterations upon them.” And in the specific context of the Tibetan plateau, Miller (1998) notes that

“herders have often been left out of the development process with neither their knowledge nor their needs and desires considered in the rush by many governments and development agencies to introduce more ‘modern’ methods of livestock production. The key to sustainable pastoral development in the Himalayas lies in incorporating and building upon the indigenous knowledge and skills herders already possess when designing new interventions. …

“Factors that should be considered in developing strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the rangelands of the Himalayas [include] to:

- adopt a holistic, systems approach that takes into consideration social as well as ecological and livestock production aspects;

- pursue multiple-use management approaches on the rangelands; … and

- encourage donor agencies to take more innovative approaches to pastoral development and range resource management.”

To achieve greater sustainability, “most of all, environment and economics must be integrated in all of our major institutions of decision-making” (MacNeill et al. 1991). Furthermore, “a ‘bottom-up’ approach [also] might succeed … where the ‘top-down’ approach [alone] has failed, but successful models are few” (Attwood et al. 1988).

In principle, almost all government leaders, from the township level right up to the national level, agree with the above recommendations to consider ecological and cultural realities as well as the shorter-term economic concerns that pertain to the “development” of high altitude grasslands. In practice, however, there still is a lot of progress that needs to be made, at several levels, to adequately integrate all of these considerations. The local government and Upper Yangtze Organization now both are at the local forefront of promoting a holistic, integrated, bottom-up approach to conservation and development in the source area of the Yangtze River. It is to their work that we now specifically turn our attention.

Suojia and the Upper Yangtze Organization: A Case Study (back to top)

In choosing a specific geographic area to present as a case study of current efforts to conserve biodiversity in Qinghai’s alpine grasslands, several conditions were sought. First, the area must have some wildlife to conserve, since the proactive approach to wildlife conservation pursued in this dissertation requires that wildlife populations be present at least in small numbers. Unfortunately, many areas of the Tibetan plateau already have lost almost all their native animals, and some grassland areas are changing rapidly due to climatic conditions, overgrazing, and other factors (Cai et al. 1990, Reardon-Anderson and Ellis 1990, Hu et al. 1992, Miehe 1994, 1996, Lang et al. 1997, Environment Science and Technology 1998b, Schaller 1998, Smith and Foggin 1999, Harris et al. 1999, Holzner and Kriechbaum 1999). In this work, wildlife (biodiversity) protection is considered a priority over species reintroductions (e.g., reintroduction of the Przewalski Horse in Mongolia; Ryder 1993, Van Dierendonck and Wallis de Vries 1996, Rees 1997) and ecosystem restoration efforts (Baldwin et al. 1993, Noss and Cooperrider 1994), hence finding an area with current wildlife populations was necessary.

Second, because the focus of this work is the integration of environment and development, the study area also should be situated where there is a resident human population. To date, most wildlife conservation studies have focused largely on uninhabited areas of the Tibetan plateau, such as Yeniugou, or Wild Yak Valley, in western Qinghai (Harris and Miller 1995, Harris et al. 1999), and the Chang Tang Nature Reserve in northern Tibet (Miller and Schaller 1996, 1997a, Schaller 1998). However, it is conservation efforts undertaken in inhabited areas that most likely will lead to successful strategies to protect biodiversity, that is, outside protected areas where human needs and aspirations must be incorporated in land use planning along with the needs of wildlife populations (Gunn 1994, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Jeffries 1997, Carpenter 1998, Harris et al. 1999). This dissertation aims in particular to find ways in which conservation can build on development, and vice versa, in order to reduce the risk that wildlife populations will be decimated any further.

Third, it is essential to select a study area that is governed by innovative, forward-looking government and community leaders who understand the value of biodiversity, and who are ready to discuss alternative conservation and development strategies. Without the confidence and support of such leaders, it would be impossible to anchor any of the concepts and ideas discussed in this work in reality, that is, to ground-truth any of the present findings and recommendations by testing them in the real socio-cultural, economic, and political (policy) contexts that affect the alpine grasslands.

The above three conditions for an effective case study are met in Suojia, a vast township in western Zhiduo. In this township, both modernization and rapid loss of biodiversity are imminent, yet the local government and the local grassroots Upper Yangtze Organization are open to new approaches for biodiversity conservation and other progressive changes in primary education, literacy work, community health, and sustainable income generation. The following case study thus is a simple, straightforward account of the conservation work already begun in Suojia, a unique “experiment” in conservation (sensu Eberhardt and Thomas 1991, Hargrove and Pickering 1992) that the local government, the Upper Yangtze Organization and I have been developing together, both formally and informally, since December 1997. Although it will be impossible to replicate in their entirety the specific conditions that underlie this work, at least the guiding principles can be replicated elsewhere in the future. These principles include, most importantly, the promotion of community participation and self-mobilization, the establishment of genuine partnerships at the local to international levels, and a commitment to work in ways that enable a sense of ownership in the work by all stakeholders. In sum, the empowerment of local communities so that they can design and implement their own conservation and development initiatives is a key objective of our integrated work (Ghai and Vivian 1992, Western and Wright 1994, Kaufman and Alfonso 1997, Margoluis and Salafsky 1998).

Where is Suojia? (back to top)

Many local herders consider Suojia to be the “belly of the plateau” because it is located near the center of the Tibetan plateau (see Figure 9). Situated in the vicinity of the source area of three great rivers – the Yellow, Yangtze, and Mekong rivers – government leaders also recognize that Suojia is a vital area for regional conservation of the Tibetan plateau, and an important part of China’s and even the world’s natural and cultural heritage. A large portion of Suojia is uninhabited, most notably the Kekexili District west of the Golmud-Lhasa Highway (see Chapter 7, Figure 40), which falls under provincial and national administration as a national-level nature reserve. The populated area of Suojia, on the other hand, is divided into four main administrative units (that is, four dadui or “villages,” each of which also is divided into four smaller xiaodui or “work teams”) (cf. Yaqu, Muqu, Jiongqu, and Dangqu; Figure 41). The latter section – that is, the populated area of Suojia, east of the Golmud-Lhasa Highway – is the geographic focus of the present study. However, even this populated area is so remote that herders and leaders alike have told me repeatedly that no other outsider, neither Chinese nor foreigner, had ever visited the areas that we traveled to in July 1998. (See Appendix V for more detailed information on the local environment, population, and history of Suojia).

Figure 41. Map of Suojia township, Zhiduo county, with approximate village (dadui) boundaries in red

The sole published accounts that I have found which refer to the Suojia area were written or recounted by two Tibetans travelers, one of whom described the local environment and nomadic life based on his travels to the area in the early 20^th century (Combe 1989), and the other of whom wrote about the area based on his recollections and notes from a trip through the area in the early 1950s (Norbu 1997) (see Appendix VI). Much more recently, Aukatsang (1994) found that Zhiduo town was still

“the end of the ‘road’ on the maps. … Beyond Zhiduo lies the unknown: frozen marshes, the kingdom of the wild yaks, the snow leopard and the Tibetan wolves. A few nomads are the only ones to venture in this high desert (+16,000 feet); they do not talk about it. … Foreigners are prevented from going [any further] by the army.” (Also see Appendix VI).

Even today, logistically as well as politically, Suojia is difficult to reach. However, the single road to the township’s administrative center is being renovated, most significantly by the construction of a bridge over the Yaqu River, and plans already have been made to extend this road beyond the administrative center all the way to Tuotuoheyan on the Golmud-Lhasa highway. But until this road is completed, travel in Suojia remains nearly impossible in summer when rivers are swollen and roads turn into mud quagmires. Overall, it is much easier to travel in winter when the frozen steppe and rivers are traversed easily, the only constraints in this season being the extreme cold and unpredictable, periodic snowstorms.

Who are the stakeholders in Suojia? (back to top)

Stakeholders are defined as “all those who affect and/or are affected by the policies, decisions and actions of the system; they can be individuals, … communities, social groups or institutions of any size, aggregation or level in the society” (‘Forging partnerships…’ 1997). In Suojia, the principal stakeholders are the local pastoralists, the people affected most directly by any development policy, project, or activity undertaken in the area. For many centuries, and up until the early 1960s, the ancestors of these herders belonged to several small, semi-nomadic hunting tribes that depended almost exclusively on the rich biological heritage that once was found everywhere on the Tibetan plateau. With the establishment of Suojia Commune (later known as Suojia Township) in 1972, however, animal husbandry was introduced into the area, a lifestyle change that later was found to be coincident with ecological changes in the alpine grassland ecosystem, including marked declines in wildlife populations and grassland productivity. It can therefore be argued that nature also is a stakeholder in development (‘Forging partnerships…’ 1997). At the very least, it is clear that environmental change does affect the livelihood and the well-being of local pastoralists, and hence that environmental impacts, including potential loss of biodiversity, also must be assessed prior to the introduction of new developments in Suojia, particularly changes in animal husbandry and other aspects of natural resource management (Figures 42 and 43).

Figure 42. Tibetan wild ass in alpine grassland on the bank of the Yangtze River

Figure 43. Tibetan tent at the foot of a local mountain, near the vegetation line (circa 4,700 m)

The people and government of Zhiduo county and Yushu prefecture also affect, or are affected by, local changes. The population of Suojia comprises around one-quarter of the county’s population, thus it significantly affects county affairs. At the prefecture level, the government has applauded the integrated environmental protection and socio-economic development work currently being undertaken in Suojia, and it even has commended the Upper Yangtze Organization as the prefecture’s own home-sprung model of community participation to better implement the nation’s comprehensive strategy to safeguard the environment (personal communication, Upper Yangtze Organization, 17 October 1999). In June 1999, the Upper Yangtze Organization also introduced its integrated conservation and development work to the Qinghai Environmental Protection Bureau. In response, the provincial bureau quickly incorporated the local initiative as part of its regional conservation plans. In conjunction with a British organization (Fauna and Flora International), the Environmental Protection Bureau now continues to build on the work originally designed by the Upper Yangtze Organization and the Suojia government (with extensive consultation and advice from myself), citing in particular a “strong commitment to the project from Community through to Township and County Administration” as a critical part of their proposed solution to conserve biodiversity in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River (Fauna and Flora International 2000). Clearly, many people, bureaus, and organizations have found the beginnings of our work very promising, whether or not they have known its origins. The drawback of the immense interest shown to date in the integrated conservation and development work in Suojia, however, is that the Upper Yangtze Organization’s central role has not always been acknowledged appropriately. Ironically, their name sometimes has been used to indicate “grassroots involvements” in other stakeholders’ projects even when they, the local stakeholders, have not even known of their involvement as “collaborators” in the others’ projects! The danger here is obvious: local stakeholders can easily be dis-empowered even while all the right words are spoken at higher levels.

At the national level, the Chinese government and several non-government organizations also recognize the great biological importance of the Suojia area. For example, Friends of Nature has undertaken a campaign to protect the Tibetan antelope, formerly abundant in the Kekexili District, and the Biodiversity Working Group (a sub-group of the China Council for International Cooperation in Environment and Development, chaired by China’s Vice Premier Wen Jiabao) has chosen to promote wildlife conservation in Suojia in partnership with the Upper Yangtze Organization and local government authorities (China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development 1999a).

A final category of stakeholders is the “international community.” As an individual, I have been involved directly with conservation and development planning in Suojia since December 1997, and, in a more general way, in the province as a whole since July 1996. Although not a herder or other member of the local community, I nonetheless have become an “active participant” (sensu Spradley 1980) in Suojia and in Zhiduo, both as an expert consultant and an international liaison for the Upper Yangtze Organization. As a consultant, the Upper Yangtze Organization has told me (retrospectively) that our long discussions played a key role in several specific ways in Suojia. Most notably, our discussions contributed to

· the establishment of four township-level wildlife protection areas;

· a greater integration of environment and development (a better recognition of the notion of ecological sustainability);

· the adoption of more participatory approaches in conservation and development; and

· an increased valuation of local indigenous (traditional) knowledge.

In my capacity as a resource-person, I also have had the opportunity to serve as a liaison for the Upper Yangtze Organization (and the local government) with various individual, corporate, and government donors. In this way, the Suojia Environment Bureau has been established and partially equipped, snow disaster relief supplies were provided during the harsh winter of 1999-2000, a village-level primary school will be opened soon, and a small clinic may be built in the near future. Encouragement and guidance also have been provided for writing an environmental education book as well as a book on the local history and culture of Tibetan pastoralists and a literacy primer. An environmental awareness video has been prepared for local high school ecology classes as well. To better coordinate all of these activities, I recently have established an organization that focuses on conservation and development work in the Tibetan plateau region, namely Plateau Perspectives. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one other international organization currently working in Suojia, Children in Crisis, though several other international organizations also have plans to work in Suojia or elsewhere in Yushu prefecture in the future (including, e.g., Fauna and Flora International, Médecins Sans Frontiers, Oxfam).

Among the many stakeholders, however, not all share equally in the consequences of our joint actions. It is therefore especially important that Tibetan pastoralists, grassroots organizations, and the local government be given primary consideration, and that the influence of external players remain only secondary to that of more local stakeholders. In the light of this, partnerships should be formed so that communication will occur at all levels, and so that more grassroots initiatives will be “discovered” rather than “designed” by non-local stakeholders (sensu Seymour 1994). Therefore, my own role as an international player purposefully has been to encourage and aid local stakeholders in their endeavors as much as it has been to suggest new directions for conservation. Thus, I have taken the role of an advisor rather than project manager or leader, yet I have been consulted frequently on many topics – ranging from basic grassland ecology and the establishment of protected areas, to community health, adult education, and even to international experience in the organization of civil society – and my opinions and recommendations generally have been valued and accepted.

Considering the massive local, provincial, national, and international interest in the source area of the Yangtze, it is hoped that the positive lessons learned so far in Suojia will not be ignored, and that ownership and direction will remain with the local communities, not over-ridden by zealous national or international conservationists who may inadvertently manipulate communities for their own purposes or treat them as commodities for fund-raising or for prestige (Pretty 1995, Mowforth and Munt 1998).

What is at stake in Suojia? (back to top)

With sustainability and biodiversity tightly interwoven together, it is the unique native biodiversity and the local pastoral way of life that are most at stake if a comprehensive, integrated approach to conservation and development is not adopted immediately in Qinghai’s alpine grasslands. Such an approach already is planned in some parts of the province, most notably in Zhiduo, both through the local government and through the first grassroots organization established in Yushu prefecture. Incidentally, even the definition and role of civil society in China’s minority areas also may be at stake if only short-term perceptions of the organization’s successes and failures are considered. This situation puts enormous pressure on the Upper Yangtze Organization to do its work well the first time, yet there also is a very strong pressure to demonstrate positive results quickly. Four main things are at stake in Suojia: biodiversity, development (sustainability), a way of life, and civil society.

How does the organization seek to maintain all of these elements? According to an official document of the Upper Yangtze Organization (1999), they are “a promotion [advocacy] and research group that is focused on the ecology and economy of the Tibetan plateau region.” As has been noted elsewhere in China, Mongolia, and worldwide (see Chapters 2 and 3), grassland quality and quantity are dependent on appropriate patterns of grassland utilization, most importantly with regard to the intensity, seasonality, and flexibility of livestock grazing patterns (also see Chapters 4 through 6). Therefore, the Upper Yangtze Organization aims to promote biodiversity conservation in conjunction with socio-economic development of the local pastoral population, including the introduction of more sustainable forms of animal husbandry. Its mission statement clearly spells out its commitment to such a comprehensive and integrated approach in the Tibetan plateau region (Upper Yangtze Organization 1999):

“Our aim is to respect [the] development requirements and rights [of local stakeholders] while considering the local conditions, the value of the environment, and especially the significance of development for the local place, for our country, and for all humanity. Our work focuses on the relationship between the environment and development. Specifically, we seek to break away from some old ideas [about development]; to motivate people to walk on the road of sustainable development; to work with people and groups interested in ecological civilization [sustainable livelihoods] and human progress [development, modernization]; and to protect the resources of the source areas [of the Yangtze, Yellow, and Mekong rivers]. We want to find development ways that are good for our local economy as well as for global ecology.”

The Upper Yangtze Organization also spells out its specific priorities:

“(1) to create a model demonstration project of ecologically sound and sustainable development on the Tibetan plateau in the source area of the Yangtze River;

(2) to provide education to increase awareness of local ecology and economy, and to motivate local resource users to take greater responsibility for their actions and to participate in decision-making;

(3) to motivate people in many different ways to protect the special biological resources [biodiversity] and the culture heritage of the Tibetan plateau region;

(4) to encourage individuals and organizations inside and outside our country to choose Qinghai and the Tibetan plateau region to conduct special research on the local ecology, wildlife, and biodiversity, and to provide the basic site for such research; and

(5) to collaborate with ecology [sustainable development] consultants and to analyze all our activities to ensure that we make scientifically sound decisions.”

The organization thus aims to demonstrate in practice its ideas and recommendations; it recognizes the importance of environmental education; it aims to protect the local biodiversity as well as to preserve the local cultural heritage; it desires to learn from and to contribute to global discourse on development and conservation; and it has chosen to adopt a scientific approach in its different endeavors. And, by its very nature, the organization is continuously (even if unintentionally) testing the waters of civil society in China.

What is the timeframe for change in Suojia? (back to top)

To assess change, it is necessary first to document what conditions were like in the past. The director of the Upper Yangtze Organization and I interviewed several older members of the Suojia community in July 1998. One 78-year-old woman recalls her childhood:

“When I was around 2 or 3 years old, my father came here [to Muqu] with me to hunt wildlife because our family was so poor. We weren’t nomads but hunters. I don’t remember exactly where we lived, but we joined a group of 20 people and we lived and hunted together. We didn’t have yak hair tents because we didn’t keep any yak or sheep as livestock. Instead, we lived in leather houses made from wild yak skins. The people in these mountains, those that we joined, they’re from the Yora tribe. They’re not Buddhist like the others in the east. I remember my father shooting wild yak right from the door of our house. Wild yak were everywhere, we never had to go far to shoot them, and there were many other wild animals, too. We used wild yak skulls to hold down the corners of our house since we didn’t have any wooden stakes. No one had metal knives and there were very few sewing needles, maybe only one in the group. Some stones were used as knives.”

Later, a 72-year-old man also reminisces:

“Before Liberation [in the late 1950s] wildlife was very abundant, but a lot was killed in those early years. However a lot of wildlife came back with government protection, or at least until they were reduced greatly by the 1985 snowstorm. Snows never used to be as heavy as in recent years, yet at the same time the land is drying up. The wildlife has never rebounded since 1985. During that winter, Tibetan antelope were literally at my tent door trying to come in. I had to scare them away so that I could come out of my tent. In the past, there were annual Tibetan antelope migrations. In March each year, females would disappear to their birthing grounds. … The hills right around Suojia and all the plains in this area also used to be black, covered everywhere with wild yak, but that’s no more. However there is one place that hasn’t changed too much, an area near Spirit Mountain where black-necked crane, snow leopard and other animals still live. That place at least hasn’t changed for as long as I can remember.”

Likewise, my colleague and friend, Zhaduo, recalls Suojia’s environment in the 1960s when he was a young herder. In his words, the land was covered “by grass so tall that you couldn’t see the dips and hollows or the water holes of the land, a land with such abundant plant life, especially in the hills, that a lot of dead plant matter remained and accumulated each year.” It is in the light of this historic context that today’s situation must be evaluated. The alpine grasslands now are less productive than before, and wildlife populations are much smaller than in the past. Several of the changes that have occurred in Suojia over the last few decades are reviewed in Foggin (1998a) (see Appendix V).

Moving now to the present and future, what is a probable timeframe for change in Suojia? It is important to recognize here that not only does the Upper Yangtze Organization seek to model its ideas for others, but modeling also has been an important factor within its own development. For example, the transfer of a general appreciation for indigenous knowledge undoubtedly has been much more significant than any of the detailed information that I personally gathered about Suojia on my field trips there, simply because the practice that I modeled – in this case, choosing to learn from old people, that is, valuing local (informal) knowledge and traditional land use practices – has been replicated, thus making a longer-lasting impact on the environment and on the people of Suojia (through the ongoing work of the Upper Yangtze Organization) than I ever could have done alone. In contrast to only two years ago, the organization’s leaders now plan to conduct as many taped interviews as possible in order to record the valuable experiential knowledge of old pastoralists before their understanding of the local ecology is lost forever (also see Fernández-Giménez 1993, Fernández-Giménez and Erdenebaatar 1995). The Upper Yangtze Organization thus seeks to better understand the local culture, history, and environmental change in the Upper Yangtze region of the Tibetan plateau. The organization leaders also have modeled themselves in part on Suonan Dajie, the charismatic first leader of Zhiduo’s Western Development Committee (Shi 1997, Bay 1999, McCarthy and Florcruz 1999; see Appendix VII). In fact, it was Suonan Dajie’s vision for Suojia and the Kekexili that first inspired Zhaduo – the current government leader of Suojia as well as the visionary behind the Upper Yangtze Organization – to set up a grassroots organization to mobilize the local herders to protect and develop their land, its wildlife, and the other natural resources of the Tibetan plateau (see Appendixes VIII and IX).

Although the leaders of the Upper Yangtze Organization recognize that change is an ongoing, long-term process, they still have marked deadlines for different projects and sub-projects. However, given the complexity inherent in participatory development, they still expect measurable changes in local attitudes and behavioral patterns to take at least 5 to 10 years. In the meantime, they have assisted with the establishment of a local environment bureau and four protected areas in 1999, and the establishment of a model demonstration area in Muqu village in 2000 (see below). After several years, when their community-based work will be more fully established in Suojia, they will then initiate similar conservation work elsewhere on the Tibetan plateau as well.

Why is the Upper Yangtze Organization so important? (back to top)

The organization was established first and foremost because its founders had observed firsthand the recent deterioration of the environment in the source area of the Yangtze, because they consider biodiversity to be an important local natural resource, and because they consider the cost of inaction to be too high in both ecological and human terms. Therefore, in conjunction with the local government, the founders of the Upper Yangtze Organization set out to find new ways to utilize Suojia’s resources sustainably and to protect the native biodiversity.

Furthermore, China is now at a crossroads. Local people and communities are encouraged, at least in theory, to participate in the implementation of the government’s goals and priorities. The Upper Yangtze Organization is simply one attempt to reach some of these goals through more community-centered, participatory methods. The organization aims both to suggest new ways forward (to the local community and to the government) and to increase a sense of local ownership, and hence responsibility, for the long-term success of development and conservation projects.

As Harris et al. (1998) note, conservation efforts cannot be successful unless leadership responsibilities for ecologically sustainable development are given to local communities and regions. Harris et al. (1998) claim in particular that their project, located in the vicinity of the Cao Hai Nature Reserve in Guizhou province in southwest China, represents the first sustained attempt of the “integration of conservation with economic development through local participation” in the country (Harris et al. 1998). However, the Cao Hai project was initiated as much by nature reserve staff, the provincial environmental protection bureau, and two international non-governmental organizations, as it was by local villagers. In contrast, the case study presented here represents a truly “discovered” project (sensu Seymour 1994), one that initially was designed locally by township government leaders and the founders of the Upper Yangtze Organization. It is only at a later stage that external, non-local stakeholders, both Chinese and foreign, became increasingly involved, mostly by invitation, in the integrated conservation and development work in Suojia.[1]

Similar to the Cao Hai Nature Reserve project, the two key strategies followed in Suojia are (1) to link conservation with community development, and (2) to place local people in more central decision-making roles. Such a community focus now is “increasingly recognized as critical to successful conservation programs (Western and Wright 1994)” (Harris et al. 1998). The development of the Upper Yangtze Organization also is an important initiative in its own right because it is a key example of a current, ground-breaking attempt to increase sustainability and to protect the environment through greater local participation, even “self-mobilization” (Pretty 1995), in the geographical and ecological contexts of the source area of the Yangtze River.

How will biodiversity be conserved in Suojia? (back to top)

The Upper Yangtze Organization’s long-term plan includes four main thrusts: community empowerment, integrated development work, sustainable income generation, and regional planning.

Local Ownership and Empowerment (back to top)

Local ownership and empowerment already have been discussed at length. It will suffice here to give two examples from Suojia. Less than two years ago, the pastoral community in Yaqu – one of Suojia’s four villages, or former production brigades (see Figure 41) – made clear its feeling that education was not a high priority for them or their children. However, after several visits and discussions with the township leader, the villagers started to catch a vision for their community’s future. Then, in less than a year, they began to make plans for a tent school, and by August 1999 the community had pooled its resources and set aside sufficient land for the school, provided several canvas tents and yak-hair tents, provided food and bedding for the children, and hired a cook. The township government only had to hire two teachers and to provide the desks and chairs. Now, around thirty children attend first grade, and forty more already are waiting to attend school as soon as possible. The most important feature of this project is the fact that, with only a little external encouragement, it is the local community that initiated it, and now the local pastoralists consider it to be 100 percent “their” school and take great pride in this fact (Figures 44 and 45). There clearly is a real and growing sense of hope in Yaqu, and plans already are afoot to expand education in the area and to begin literacy work and health training in the future. My role in this project has simply been that of unofficial advisor to the Suojia government and the Upper Yangtze Organization, particularly encouraging them that the school project should only be initiated once the herders themselves felt that education was important – at which stage they (the herders) took over almost in full, with excellent results. In this case, it is Children in Crisis that provided the additional financial resources that were necessary to buy warm tents that could be used in all four seasons (but also see Appendix X).

Figure 44. School children and teachers in front of tent school in Yaqu village

Figure 45. Author meeting with village leaders in Yaqu village (photographer: Ms. Raija Pyykkönen)

Among the pastoralists in Muqu – another of Suojia’s four villages – local participation followed a slightly different course. Initially, the leaders’ hopes rose much higher than in Yaqu, but then when some specific decisions needed to be made, differences were more difficult to resolve. Specifically, different views surrounding the establishment of a tent-school had to be overcome, including finding a way to share the costs of lost grazing land, and choosing a location for the school that was considered equitable (in terms of distance away from home) by everyone. After many long discussions among village and households leaders over a period of several months, with the assistance of the Upper Yangtze Organization both as catalyst and mediator (prompted by Plateau Perspectives), the location of the school finally was agreed upon in April 2000. Only then, after the Muqu community made this first concrete step toward the project, did the Suojia government and the Upper Yangtze Organization jointly request some additional financial assistance from Plateau Perspectives. (The contribution that we made supplemented a smaller grant provided earlier by the Global Greengrants Fund for the establishment of a small research station and education center for wildlife conservation in the same geographic area. The teacher for the school will receive some training in grassland ecology and natural resource management in order to better teach the children and to increase their environmental awareness. This tent school also is the first step in a larger plan to develop a model demonstration project for sustainable development in the entire region).

Through both of these projects, in Yaqu and Muqu villages, the Upper Yangtze Organization has even increased its resolve to promote community-based decision-making. It has chosen to follow this route on the assumption that long-lasting changes in health, education, literacy, and the environment all require that local responsibility be taken alongside policy-level government decisions. For example, if tents had been purchased by external stakeholders and simply given to the local herders before they had decided for themselves that education was important, then all sense of local responsibility would be gone, the school would not be valued, and parents likely would not send their children to school.

The township government, the Upper Yangtze Organization, the county government, and even the Qinghai Environmental Protection Organization all feel varying degrees of ownership in this ongoing integrated development work as well, as also do several national and international stakeholders – even though, among the latter, very few have yet made any direct contributions. National and international stakeholders include, for example, the Biodiversity Working Group, Children in Crisis, Fauna and Flora International, the Global Greengrants Fund, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Plateau Perspectives. However, regarding environmental work at least, it is only Plateau Perspectives, with some assistance from the national Biodiversity Working Group, that already has begun to work in Suojia in significant, concrete, tangible ways (i.e., only Plateau Perspectives truly has collaborated with local partners, as opposed to solely the provision or promise of funds; see Appendix X).

Clearly, we must continue to seek that partnerships between local governments, grassroots to national and international organizations, and local communities are genuine for development and conservation endeavors to succeed. Particular caution must be taken so that “local participation” does not become “manipulative” (Pretty 1995), or that communities be treated as “commodities” (Mowforth and Munt 1998). In the end, it is the empowerment of local institutions and communities, by working with them as equal partners, that will best ensure long-term, continuous change even long after all external stakeholders have left the area. Intrinsic to such partnerships is capacity building for biodiversity conservation and many aspects of sustainable development.

The Integration of Basic Education, Literacy, Health, and the Environment (back to top)

The second main thrust of the Upper Yangtze Organization’s work is to integrate as much as possible many of the local needs and aspirations in their work, as well as to draw attention to the somewhat more abstract, regional issues of environmental protection. To do this, the organization has chosen to integrate several areas of concern, specifically, to include health and environmental components in their basic education and adult literacy training materials. One leader already is writing a literacy primer, another is writing a book on the local environment, and a third is writing a book on the local culture and history of Suojia. A health education booklet also is being prepared for a Children in Crisis project, under Plateau Perspectives supervision, for a basic education and health training project that has been planned at the county level.

Overall, this integrated approach is important because conservation and development are mutually dependent, and also simply because this is the approach that the local communities (as represented by the Upper Yangtze Organization) have chosen to address the various complex issues surrounding their future. Why have these four specific areas of work – that is, education, literacy, health, and the environment – been chosen, and why should they be implemented simultaneously? First, for pastoralists “to be involved as actors, and not only objects [of] development, at least the basic educational standards must be raised considerably” (Närman 1990). Second, as Coombs and Ahmed (1995, in Eisemon et al. 1998) point out, illiteracy results in inequity and loss of productivity, yet attempts to increase literacy rates are effective only “as part of a wider strategy to eradicate poverty, exclusion and injustice” (Lourié 1990). Third, a population’s health status can be affected by a combination of socio-environmental and lifestyle factors, by the availability of health care services, and by prevailing cultural attitudes about health and health care provision (Swift et al. 1990, Jamieson 1991, Foggin et al. 1995, 2000, Campi 1996). It also is recognized that health status and other social factors can be improved through adult education and literacy programs (Grosse and Auffrey 1989, LeVine et al. 1991, in Puchner 1998; Hoxeng 1995, in Eisemon 1998). And fourth, as has been discussed throughout this dissertation, the environment (biodiversity) must be protected to ensure sustainable development, that is, the long-term viability of Qinghai’s pastoral alpine grassland ecosystems (see, e.g., Jacobs and Munro 1987, MacNeill 1991, Stevens 1997a, Margoluis and Salafsky 1998). Thus, an integrated approach to conservation and development will provide the greatest chance of success both for biodiversity conservation and for improving the quality of life of the local people and local communities in the source area of the Yangtze River in southwestern Qinghai, China.

In Suojia, such an integrated approach will be implemented first in Muqu, where a tent school already has been planned and funded (see above), and teaching will begin in Fall 2000. This also is where a large area of land (approximately 130 km²) has been given by the township government to the Upper Yangtze Organization to develop as a demonstration area for sustainable animal husbandry and other relevant trials and feasibility studies, including limited ecotourism (see Figure 46). Thus literacy, environmental awareness, and health training also will be provided at the school when the students are not in class. The school likely will become a community center as well – as long as it remains a locally owned initiative – and will be the geographic focus (and the showcase) for the Upper Yangtze Organization’s demonstration work. At this stage, however, yet another critical challenge remains, that is, to find sustainable ways of funding all of the above activities.

Ecotourism and Community Income Generation (back to top)

Tourism has been suggested many times as a possible way to generate community income in Suojia. Worldwide, travel to protected areas and to pristine wilderness – that is, ecotourism – is one of the most rapidly growing sectors in the industry, and adventure tourism comprises almost ten percent of the global tourism market (Boo 1990, Whelan 1991, Mowforth and Munt 1998). Appropriate tourism can contribute to sustainable development and even benefit biodiversity conservation (Barkin 1996, Rai and Sundriyal 1997, Roe et al. 1997). Specifically, according to Brandon (1996),

“the key benefits for conservation can be clustered in five areas: a source of financing for biodiversity conservation, especially in legally protected areas; economic justification for protected areas; economic alternatives for local people to reduce over-exploitation on protected areas and wildlands and wildlife resources; constituency-building which promotes biodiversity conservation; and an impetus for private biodiversity conservation efforts.”

Even in China, tourism in general (and to a lesser degree nature tourism) is being promoted as a valuable means to enhance regional economic development (Wei 1993, Dorje 1997, ‘Qinghai Province…’ 1998). However, some researchers feel that tourism in China still must refocus on low-impact, small group tours, strategically capitalizing on China’s rich natural and cultural resources (Liu and Dowling 1991), rather than on mass tourism. Fortunately, environmental and cultural tourism now are being integrated with environmental protection in China, thus conforming to recent trends in international tourism as well as with Chinese policies on the environment (China National Tourism Administration 1998).

Regarding tourism in Suojia, the notion of small-group cultural tourism, ecotourism, and adventure tourism have been discussed at length for over two years as a possible source of income to fund local community development and conservation activities. The primary limitation to implementing these plans has only been the lack of a development- and conservation-minded business partner. However, with the recent announcement of a national reserve to protect the source area of the Yangtze River, with ecotourism to be developed as a main source of funding, it now is increasingly likely that such partners will be found in China and internationally. The proposed reserve, which will cover nearly one-third of the provincial area, will be divided into three main zones: a core zone closed to all human activities, a buffer zone where limited animal husbandry and relevant scientific research activities will be undertaken, and several experimental demonstration zones near populated areas where tourism development will be promoted (‘New reserve…’ 2000, ‘Qinghai to build…’ 2000).

However, a new question now arises: How will these zones be delineated? And indeed, have higher provincial or national authorities already delineated them? While I do not know the answer regarding the massive reserve proposed by the national government, it at least is clear that provincial authorities have chosen to work in concert with the local township and county governments and the Upper Yangtze Organization in Suojia (Fauna and Flora International 2000). Therefore, the regional plans already developed locally in Suojia will, directly and indirectly, be the starting point for the Qinghai Environmental Protection Bureau’s work in the area, and hence also for Fauna and Flora International and for any other organization that will choose to partner with the provincial bureau in the future. At the same time, though, the immediate future could also prove to be a very critical juncture in the history of Suojia, since the local communities that have begun to hope and to participate in designing their own future could all-too-easily be overrun or at least overlooked as a large group of new, external stakeholders, each with its own set of goals and priorities, moves into the area (Huntington 1988, Narayan 1996, Bernard and Young 1997). Even the process of mapping – the very basis of regional conservation and development planning – can either enhance or detract from a community’s sense of ownership and commitment to the work. In fact, according to Hopkins (1992), maps and map-making can reveal “as much about the … agendas behind the map as about any geographic reality.” Likewise, Stone (1998) states that “the map – or control of the map – sometimes makes the territory…. ‘More indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by [any other means]’.” Therefore, it is deemed exceptionally important at this time to document here at least some of the current, locally designed plans for Suojia, most of them developed jointly by the local governments and the Upper Yangtze Organization, and for which I also have had the privilege of being a main advisor. These regional land use plans may or may not be translated into reality in the future, but they nonetheless represent the immense effort made to date by the local people and the local leadership to tackle their own future, in all of its complexity, head-on. Fortunately, it appears that the provincial government will adopt most of these plans, though the degree of community and township involvement may be dependent more on the conscientious work of the international stakeholders than on the local people themselves.

Finally, before moving on to the specifics of the regional plan in Suojia, McNeely (1990) wisely reminds us that, first and foremost, it always will be extremely important to

“recognize that preparing a conservation strategy is a process, and that the process should be infinitely more important and attractive than the mere production of a document. Linkages and partnerships that are forged during the process may last far beyond the date of publication, and indeed such abiding relations should planned as part of the process.”

It is just such a process that I have undertaken since I moved to Qinghai in July 1996, nearly four years ago, and it is these linkages and partnerships that are the foundation for the “final product” presented below.

Protected Areas and Multiple-use Land Management (Regional Planning) (back to top)

The most striking element of the regional land use plan in Suojia is the presence of four township-level nature reserves (protected areas) and a large demonstration area (Figure 46). It also is worth noting the many similarities between the “conceptual layout of an ideal biosphere reserve” (based on Hough 1988, in Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Figure 47) and the regional land use plans already developed for Suojia (see Figures 46 and 48).

Figure 46. Map of Suojia township, with four protected areas and demonstration area highlighted

Figure 47. Ideal biosphere reserve (based on Hough 1988, in Noss and Cooperrider 1994)

Figure 48. Simple map of Suojia township, with core zones and other management areas highlighted

The only human settlement in Suojia is the administrative center with a population of less than 150 people, many of which are government employees. Government offices, a veterinarian station, a small health clinic, a warehouse, a few small shops, and a primary school (with three grades) are located in the town, but there is little else. Environmental education can be taught in the Suojia primary school, and also in the tent schools in Yaqu and Muqu (indicated as ‘E’ in Figure 48). Other than these few public centers, though, there are only individual tents and winter homes that dot the sparsely populated high-altitude grasslands and steppes of Suojia (Figures 49 and 50).

Figure 49. Suojia landscape, with small town (administrative center) beside the Muqu River

Figure 50. Suojia’s administrative center

The heart of the regional land use plan in Suojia is the establishment of the four protected areas (indicated as ‘Core Zones’ in Figure 48). Each of these areas was selected to protect a key umbrella species – the black-necked crane (Grus nigricollis), Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsoni), Tibetan wild ass (Equus kiang), and snow leopard (Uncia uncia) – but at the same time it also is recognized that it is whole ecosystems that must be protected. Nearest (to the south of) the administrative center in Suojia is the black-necked crane reserve. Here, the rich wetlands at the base of Spirit Mountain are said to be the home for many cranes every spring and summer, and the local herders already forbid hunting (and will dissuade outsiders from hunting) for fear of the local mountain gods. To the west, a large area has been designated to protect a local, resident population of Tibetan antelope. Although pastoralists rarely use this land (the steppe vegetation is too sparse, so pastoralists only graze their livestock in the adjacent hills and mountains), some truck drivers travel across the frozen plains in winter, usually en route to Lhasa, thus disturbing and sometimes poaching the local wildlife. To the east of the main settlement in Suojia, another core zone has been established to protect the Tibetan wild ass (Figure 51). This area also has a very small human population, this time because of the very high altitude of the land (around 4,500 m) and consequent poor living conditions. Finally, to the north near the bank of the Yangtze River, a rugged mountain area has been designated as a nature reserve to protect the snow leopard and other mountain species (Figure 52). This reserve is adjacent to the demonstration area designed by the Upper Yangtze Organization (see below), and thus also of special interest for the development of a multiple-use land management plans with limited ecotourism (Figures 53 and 54).

Figure 51. Tibetan wild ass near the protected area in Jiongqu (see Figure 46)

Figure 52. Arid grassland in the demonstration area, with rugged snow leopard reserve in background

Figure 53. Cultural (religious) site of unknown origin in the demonstration area in Muqu village

Figure 54. Author and packhorses during a wildlife survey, July 1999 (photographer: Mr. David Rutledge)

The large area of land that the township government allocated to the Upper Yangtze Organization in 1998 to develop as a demonstration zone for sustainable animal husbandry (see Appendix VIII) encompasses three main valleys. The eastern valley either adjoins or is a part of the local nature reserve (the exact delineation of the four reserves still is unclear), and it has a very rugged, mountainous topography. It is possible that occasional small groups of ecotourists could enter the lower portion of this remote valley. The central valley of the demonstration area, on the other hand, will serve to test and demonstrate different animal husbandry and land management practices, including the seasonal rotation of livestock, improved veterinary practices, different marketing strategies, and the specific protection of springs and riparian areas. The training and research center (for adult literacy, health care training, nature reserve management, wildlife biology) and primary school (tent school) also will be located in this valley. Finally, some sections of the western valley in the demonstration area have undergone the most serious desertification in the region, and special attention therefore will be paid to undertaking appropriate vegetation restoration studies. Because a large part of this valley is relatively flat land on the south bank of the Yangtze River, it also has been suggested that some irrigation ditches could be built in order to grow extra winter fodder for local pastoralists’ livestock. However, the economic and ecological feasibility of the latter suggestion have not yet been investigated.

A research site also has been designated, at least conceptually, between the demonstration area and the large Tibetan antelope nature reserve to the west, mainly for vegetation studies. Both the demonstration area and this smaller research site will provide natural bases for monitoring wildlife populations and grassland conditions (indicated as ‘M’ in Figure 48). Even more important, though, are the 16 field workers that live throughout the township. These workers are the current team leaders in Suojia, four each in Muqu, Dangqu, Jiongqu, and Yaqu villages. Through the effort of these workers (of the Suojia Environment Bureau), it is anticipated that local herders will increasingly consider wildlife protection to be for their own benefit as well, mainly through the environmental awareness that these team leaders, still herders themselves, will bring to their neighbors and constituents. Three “no hunting” zones also have been established, but I do not yet know where they are located in Suojia. And, finally, the remaining area in Suojia can be defined largely as an extensive buffer zone because sustainability is considered to be such a high priority throughout the entire township.

Together, the above zones (see Figures 46 and 48) form a comprehensive, locally designed, and insightful regional land use plan for Suojia Township. However, like Noss and Cooperrider (1994) express in their book Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity, “the only science worth doing is one firmly grounded in an ethic and an emotional commitment.” Hopefully such a commitment is apparent in this dissertation, and also in the work of the Tibetan herders of Suojia, the Upper Yangtze Organization, and the local government leaders. Like Noss and Cooperrider (1994), we also are “by no means certain our proposals will work, but we think they have half a chance if implemented quickly and energetically.” And already a lot of progress has been made, from encouraging and promoting the genuine participation of local communities, to strengthening the work of the Upper Yangtze Organization, to providing assistance in education and health care as well as biodiversity conservation (through Plateau Perspectives), to gaining the support of the China Council for International Cooperation in Environment and Development in the form of the “Upper Yangtze Integrated Conservation and Development Demonstration Project” of the Biodiversity Working Group. In practice, the present work also has led very specifically to the establishment of an environment bureau and the creation of four protected areas in Suojia, as well as the regional plan presented above, which is the probable foundation for much of the future conservation and development work in Suojia.

As stated at the beginning of this dissertation, conservation biology aims both “to investigate human impacts on biodiversity” – which has been done through the study of relevant key themes (Chapter 2) and regions in China (Chapter 3), as well as through a general analysis of the Qinghai Lake Area (Chapter 4), an in-depth vegetation study (Chapter 5), a regional study of grassland use and biodiversity in Qinghai’s alpine grasslands (Chapter 6), and an overview of wildlife observations in Qinghai and discussion of the main threats to biodiversity (Chapter 7) – and also “to develop practical approaches to preserving biodiversity and ecological integrity” (Miller 1996). The second half of this practical definition of conservation biology was addressed in detail in the present “case study” from Suojia in the heart of the Tibetan plateau rangelands.

Summary of Conservation and Development Work in Suojia (back to top)

The Upper Yangtze Organization is a local grassroots organization that recently was established in the source area of the Yangtze River in southwest Qinghai, China. The organization has been approved by the county and prefecture governments but is comprised mainly of local Tibetan herders. The main goal of the organization is to help improve the living conditions of the local nomads and simultaneously to protect the unique native wildlife of the Tibetan plateau present in the source area of the Yangtze River.

Virtually all the local people raise yak and sheep, though only one to two generations ago local Tibetans belonged primarily to hunting tribes. Currently, living conditions are difficult at best and the risk of loss of livestock (and hence of primary livelihood) is invariably high. Winter snows are unpredictable and can have devastating effects, such as last winter (1999-2000). It is felt by the Upper Yangtze Organization’s leaders that only a full and real sense of ownership of new ideas by local herders will allow for long-term changes to occur. This, however, will not happen by simply telling herders what to do. The most important work, it is felt, is to establish a demonstration area where new ideas can be tried and tested, and eventually modeled and demonstrated, so that local herders can examine new practices for themselves and make up their own minds. The township government already has lent around 130 km² of land on the bank of the Yangtze River to the Upper Yangtze Organization to serve as such a demonstration area. Funds also have been obtained to cover basic operating costs and to help establish a tent-school in the demonstration area. The school will be expanded later to serve as a larger community center. At present, however, discussions still are ongoing between the Upper Yangtze Organization and local community leaders, since community initiatives are still new phenomena in China, especially in minority areas.

Overall, the feeling that has begun to surface in conjunction with these beginnings of grassroots, participatory development is a real sense of hope, both for improved living conditions and also simply for the possibility of having a more active role in the overall process itself. Clearly, there is both nervousness and excitement in pursuing this new avenue – grassroots development – in a country that to date has mainly operated through “blueprint” and top-down approaches toward development and change.

The Upper Yangtze Organization recognizes that development is dependent on the local natural resources. The organization also recognizes that the alpine grasslands have a very low primary productivity, are extremely fragile, and already are undergoing rapid degradation and even desertification. These facts are clearly recognized by Chinese scientists and higher government leaders as well. Significantly, the grasslands in the source area of the Yangtze River support many unique and internationally endangered wildlife species, including the snow leopard, Tibetan antelope, and black-necked crane. In order to promote environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, the Upper Yangtze Organization has successfully encouraged the establishment of a township environment bureau as well as four nature reserves, and negotiations currently are underway with provincial, national, and international organizations and government bureaus to create a “master plan” for these conservation activities in concert with the development needs and aspirations of the local pastoral population.

The two main challenges currently facing the Upper Yangtze Organization are to gain increasing support from some intermediate levels of government, and to find the expertise and financial resources necessary to begin to implement as soon as possible some of their ideas. Finally, it also is likely that specific grassroots solutions never will be suitable for implementation over large geographic areas since the most important factor determining success might simply be trust and confidence in the facilitators themselves, in this case the Upper Yangtze Organization and other local leaders. However, even the simple presence and official approval of an organization like the Upper Yangtze Organization is ground for considerable optimism and hope that local communities in the alpine grassland areas of the Tibetan plateau may become more and more involved in the search for local solutions to local and regional conservation and development needs, and thus also in directing the future. Both the local Tibetan pastoral communities and the native biodiversity of the Tibetan plateau stand to gain from these recent trends.

Ultimately, all of us are stakeholders in the global environment and in the fundamental quest for sustainability. Forging long-lasting partnerships at all levels therefore should be one of the foundations for future efforts in biodiversity conservation and development, whether in Qinghai’s alpine grasslands or elsewhere in the world. The present study simply illustrates some of the early successes in one region of the Tibetan plateau that have stemmed from such partnerships and from the participation of local communities in integrated conservation and development work. And, through this study, it is seen how new hope and a growing enthusiasm for conservation also increase the likelihood of the successful protection of biodiversity.

(back to top)

_________________________

Table of Contents

Chapter Eight

Regional Conservation Planning in the Source Area of the Yangtze River (Suojia Township): A Case Study

8.1. Introduction

8.2. Biodiversity Protection

8.2.1. Biodiversity conservation (and development) in China

8.2.2. Key strategies for successful conservation

8.2.3. Putting (local) people first

8.2.4. Power plays in project planning

8.3. Civil Society in China

8.3.1. The emergence of environmental NGOs in China

8.3.2. Special characteristics of the Tibetan plateau

8.4. Suojia and the Upper Yangtze Organization: A Case Study

8.4.1. Where is Suojia?

8.4.2. Who are the stakeholders in Suojia?

8.4.3. What is at stake in Suojia?

8.4.4. What is the timeframe for change in Suojia?

8.4.5. Why is the Upper Yangtze Organization so important?

8.4.6. How will biodiversity be conserved in Suojia?

8.4.6.1. Local Ownership and Empowerment

8.4.6.2. The Integration of Based Education, Literacy, Health, and the Environment

8.4.6.3. Ecotourism and Community Income Generation

8.4.6.4. Protected Areas and Multiple-use Land Management (Regional Planning)

8.5. Summary of Conservation and Development Work in Suojia

(back to top)

[1] It should be noted, though, that many of my ideas and local ideas have begun to merge because, in both cases, our ideas have been developed over time through ongoing, joint discussions. Nonetheless, I still consider the work described here to be more “theirs” than “mine,” since I definitely have asked at least as many questions as I have given tentative answers or have proposed possible solutions.