Joe

I have recently completed an evaluation for the United Nations
Environment Programme on how aid is spent for phasing out
ozone-depleting solvents. This took me to six major developing countries
(a colleague did a seventh). Our reports fill a large tome and include
some pretty shocking cases of the use of public funds. Our work took us
to China, amongst others, and I must admit that the SEPA seems to be
among the better organised and committed of all the government
departments we visited. I could name another very large country where
the same could not be said. I am not saying that we reported no problems
in China: there were plenty, but they cannot be placed so much at SEPA's
door as at that belonging to two international organisations.

We visited a number of factories, some state-owned, some which were but
have been privatised (partially or wholly) and some which are privately
owned. On the whole, I was agreeably surprised at the committment, even
in the smaller production units, although none could really be described
as SMEs. On the whole, those where there is significant foreign capital
and/or technical know-how are the most environmentally conscious and
have advanced the most. We saw no cases where foreign owners "exported"
their polluting activities to China, or any other country. Rather the
contrary, developed country customers are imposing that locally owned
enterprises produce to sound environmental standards. Only one, smaller,
company in China really shocked us as not having the right mind-set.

Obviously, we did not visit power-producing or other heavy industry
plants. I did notice that a number of coal-fired power stations SW of
Beijing and their associated coal mines looked pretty dark and satanic
and I suppose it is this kind of thing that will be attacked by these
measures.

However, Rome was not built in a day and the Chinese authorities have an
obviously big task on their hands, with quite a lot of foreign aid
coming in to help them. It is the sheer volume of industry that is
staggering. I wish them luck!

Incidentally, Shanghai is an interesting case. Many of the downtown
production units have been forcibly moved uptown to premises that have
been previously occupied by uneconomical large enterprises that have
been forced to close down in a market-driven economy. The old, central,
premises are being demolished to make the city a flower for Chinese
enterprise, comparable to Hong Kong.

All in all, of the 7 countries we visited, I can confidently state that
only one is better implemented and committed to cleaning up pollution
than China.

Brian

Joseph Fjelstad wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> In the January 13th edition of Hong Kong's "Sunday Morning Post" a
> front page article reported on China's efforts to clean-up. According
> to the article, the money (~ $85 billion US) is to be spent to reduce
> airborn emissions, dust and solid waste over five years. This appears
> to provide evidence that was always long suspected that a heavy price
> was being paid by the Chinese people and their environment for the
> rapid expansion.
>
> This may also help to level the playing field in electronics
> manufacture. Most of the world's electronic manufacturers have to make
> significant investment in pollution control before they can open their
> doors. It is a bit late but not too late (hopefully) for China.
>
> This should be a good opportunity for environemental engineering and
> consulting companies to "do well by doing good".
>
> I wish China much success in it efforts as we will all certainly
> benefit.
>
> Best to all,
> Joe