Governance of Biodiversity Conservation in China And Taiwan

other species could be mitigated.^58 The overriding emphasis at the conclusion
of review in mid-2005 was the need for hydropower in this poor, remote
region in order to fuel economic development. The review apparently
recommended that construction of the dam proceed with modifications to its
size and number of stations, but the full report remained secret. Environmental
protest continued. Some 60 NGOs and 99 individuals sent a letter to the
Premier, demanding that the EIA be publicized, and stating that a decision
without public participation ‘lacks public support and cannot tolerate public
scrutiny’.^59
The situation at the close of 2005 was that the ad hoc coalition of environ-
mental groups urged the regime to adhere to the intent of the 2003 EIA Law,
by making earlier reviews public and holding open hearings. Central govern-
ment authorities had not responded or resolved how to proceed by the end of

2005. The domestic press was silent and officials with information and
      decisional power declined to speak to the foreign press.^60

Implications of the Nujiang case
A virtually universal response to the Nujiang case was that it demonstrated
the new power of ENGOs in Chinese society. The Director of Tsinghua
University’s NGO research center said: ‘It was an important turning point in
that NGOs managed to influence the government’s public policy’.^61 A SEPA
official remarked:

‘It was the first time a project of this scope was delayed, and this showed the power

of the NGOs. The government did stop the project, even if temporarily. It listened

to the NGO voice. From a political perspective, this was new political thought and

also new political action, with protests of NGOs and local grassroots groups.’^62

Experts acknowledged the importance of providing for the poor, but the
number of extremely poor people in the direct project area was small.
Scientists also pointed out that insufficient information about fish and other
species in the region made it difficult to support a decision to abort the
project.
Another respondent, a veteran analyst of environmental conflicts in China,
thought that what most observers said about the case was too simple:

‘This is for several reasons. If you ask, whose influence was greatest in the

outcome? To say NGOs would be wrong. SEPA also opposed it and that’s one

element. NGOs and newspapers opposed it, and experts, scientists sent letters.

Some of the letter-writers may know Wen Jiabao. He may have been influenced by

this. Also, the World Conservation Union and a World Bank committee – their

leaders wrote letters to the government. I don’t know the contents or if they had any

influence, but some say they were very influential. It is impossible to say which was

most important.’^63

214 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan