Search

In Dechen (Bde chen) County, Yunnan Province, a Tibetan county of the People's Republic of China, prominent lay Buddhist practitioners work to resist and mitigate the impacts of agrochemical pollution and climate change on sacred landscapes. In this region of northwest Yunnan officially renamed and dubbed "Shangri-La" by the local and national state for tourism purposes, and in alignment of this name with the term Shambala, a place of divine serenity in Tibetan Buddhism, the protagonists in this paper insist that chemical futures and pollution are only adding to the creation of a "fake" Shangri-La, and that more than human- and nature-centric views are necessary in building a more ecologically sound future. This paper ethnographically analyses these activities and motivations in the context of ecocentric views surrounding indigenous Tibetan more-than-human spirit worlds. I ask what drives rural Tibetan grape-growers to pursue an ecologically friendly agenda. Motivations include observation of chemical degradation on land, Buddhist ethics, local land worship, and conceptions that being a local Tibetan should revolve around the preservation of sacred landscapes and mountain gods and spirits rather than purely economic profit and development. A critical variable, however, is that lay Buddhists holding these beliefs are exceptions, with most villages showing more concern for the economic benefits of new cash agricultures over sacred landscapes and spirits. I argue that while many villagers are willing to ignore the long-term vitality of the sacred landscape in favour of economic prosperity and view new economic activities as morally acceptable within Tibetan spirituality, some individuals insist that preserving the local landscape is paramount to a sustainable future both locally and across Greater China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In post-socialist China, the village's collective management over community farmland, forestry, and other resources has been greatly undermined since China's reform and opening up in the early 1980s. The subsequent rural-urban migration has further dismantled rural communities. Efforts have been made to revitalise the countryside, yet little success has been achieved. This paper closely examines one community reconstruction case that experienced two development stages: village committee-led internal development based on collective management of community resources, and tourism development externally subsidised by the government. Unsuccessful as it is, the case shows the vital role of collective resource management in comparison to external subsidies and investment in community reconstruction. It also suggests that a strong community leadership can initiate the process of community reconstruction, but a lack of mobilisation and participation of community members creates underlying issues that threaten its sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]