搬遷，保留，還是振興？中國邊遠鄉(xiāng)村的三種選擇

文/ Pierre S. Guertin

譯/董方源

二十多年前，我們第一次在幾個國家參加國際志愿項目時，就對邊遠村落的振興產(chǎn)生了興趣。說到中國農(nóng)村，最近中國政府開展扶貧工作，其目標是幫助邊遠地區(qū)七千萬人口改善惡劣的生活條件，即使不能完全消除貧困。這再一次引起我們的注意。

在中國，村莊是以分散或聚集形式分布，規(guī)模比城鎮(zhèn)小，居民從幾百到幾千不等，由此組成一個由村領(lǐng)導管理的行政實體。這種行政體有時由多個小村落組成。

邊遠村鎮(zhèn)意味著它處于社會經(jīng)濟體制的邊遠，甚至難以算作是該體制中的一部分。簡言之，邊遠村鎮(zhèn)需符合一系列有關(guān)空間組織、生物物理資源、人口結(jié)構(gòu)、農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟、家庭財富收入和社區(qū)生活的復雜標準。

我們看到，生活在惡劣環(huán)境中的村民們物質(zhì)上普遍匱乏。農(nóng)村留守群體中，老年人占多數(shù)，他們似乎既向往城市生活，又不愿放棄農(nóng)村的有形財富（包括房屋住宅、生產(chǎn)資產(chǎn)、鄰里關(guān)系和習慣了的日常生活）。另外，現(xiàn)在的農(nóng)民們既能下地勞作，也會使用網(wǎng)絡(luò)。鑒于上述情況，人們不禁要問：如果適當?shù)馁Y源到位，是否能讓每個邊遠村落都脫貧？

下列三種方式或許會提供一些解決思路。

Our interest for the revitalization of marginal villages dates back more than 20 years ago when we first engaged into voluntary international mandates in numerous countries. In the case of the Chinese village, our interest has been recently re-aroused by the Chinese Government’s program of Poverty Alleviation whose objective is to reduce, if not eliminate altogether, the unacceptable living conditions of some 70 millions persons confined into marginality.

In China, a village is defined as a spread out or clustered, smaller than a town, having from a few hundreds to a few thousands inhabitants and forming an administrative entity headed by a village Leader. Such an administrative entity sometimes consolidates together a few smaller villages.

For a community, to be marginal means to occupy the borderline of a socio-economic system or to barely qualify to be part of it. Simply defined, a marginal village or town answers to a set of tightly knitted criteria related to spatial organization, to bio-physical resources, to demographic structure, to agricultural economy, to family wealth sources, to community life.

We witness a general material impoverishment of the villagers living in lamentable environmental conditions, while its remaining population,made up with sometimes aging adults, seemed split between the attraction of the city‘s life style and the tangible values of their community made up of houses, production assets, neighbors and secular daily practices. Farmers straddling agricultural picking and internet surfing!

What precedes raises a capital question: given the proper resources, should every marginal village be pulled out of poverty?

The following three tier analysis of options is meant to shed some light over that problem.

鄉(xiāng)村旅游帶動了經(jīng)濟發(fā)展，圖為游客在浙江東洲街道陸家浦村的葡萄采摘園內(nèi)采摘葡萄 （圖片來源：新華社）

鄉(xiāng)村搬遷：安置和融入的難題

這個方式聽起來很是激進，就是將一個村里的全部人口遷至別處，村里的建筑要么廢棄要么拆除。這種做法的主要優(yōu)點在于徹底地解決問題，把村子從地圖上抹掉。如同那句俗語“一了百了”，這是個根治療法。

據(jù)我們所知，中國在村莊重新安置上已經(jīng)做出了不少嘗試：比如在寧夏大武口區(qū)石嘴山、黃土高原以及經(jīng)歷了2008年汶川地震的綿陽。但卻收效甚微。緣何如此？這是因為搬村造成了雙向難題，首先是上游問題，包括可能破壞社會網(wǎng)絡(luò)和日常社區(qū)活動，還有就是對祖屋、農(nóng)業(yè)設(shè)備和建筑的破壞，農(nóng)民們也失去了曾經(jīng)的耕地。

然后還面臨著為搬遷村民選擇合適新址這樣的下游難題。英國、蘇格蘭、柬埔寨和法國新鎮(zhèn)建設(shè)的經(jīng)驗告訴我們，鄉(xiāng)村村址往往承載著象征性意義，人們常把它與歷史事件聯(lián)系到一起。同時，在一些發(fā)達國家，適合建立新的村落的地方往往是最初的（如果不是原始的）景觀或生產(chǎn)用地。例如，銀川的一片土地和寧夏中部地區(qū)就是這種情況。另外，不管是重建村莊還是把那些失去家園的村民安置到現(xiàn)有城鎮(zhèn)中并新建公共住房區(qū)，這些都需要大筆資金投入。

Village removal

The above expression sounds drastic. Yet, it means what it says: to simply move a village population somewhere else and to leave its buildings to abandon or (eventually) to demolition. This alternative has advantages, the main one being that of eliminating the problem, literally wiping it out of the map.There is a proverb saying that “Death heals the hunchback”. A radical cure!

In China, to our knowledge, there has been some attempts to relocate entire villages: we witnessed some in Shizuishan near Dawukuo, some on the Loess Plateaus of central China and some in Mianyang after the earthquake of 2008. With mitigated success. Why? Because village removal creates two-directional problems, starting with the enormous upstream problem of community disruption, including the potential loss of social networks and of daily community practices, not to forget the loss of an ancestral house, of agricultural equipment and buildings, and the loss of familiar agricultural patches to till... in an appropriated historical landscape.

Then, downstream, emerges the problem of choosing an adequate site for the new human establishment. Our experience with the English, Scottish,Cambodian and French New Towns tells us that rural sites often bear symbolic values, are often related to historical events marking them with a “no access” sign, while in some developed countries a site fit for a new village also qualifies for the title of prime, if not primeval, landscape or production land. This has been the case with a land portion in Yinchuan, for example,and in central Ningxia. Moreover, the construction of the new village, if the village is to be rebuilt, or the construction of a public housing complex,if the displaced population is to be located in an existing town, implies important capital input.

假如要建一座新村莊，一般需要在現(xiàn)有的農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)域建設(shè)。對于像中國這樣的國家，大部分合適的農(nóng)業(yè)用地都已經(jīng)用作耕地，要想找到合適的土地是有些困難。例如，20世紀90年代，烏克蘭的Kovalin地區(qū)，大片的農(nóng)業(yè)用地被分割，用于安頓來自切爾諾貝利的人口，新來者分到的土地面積很小，難以進行資源有效耕種。更不用說此舉遭到當?shù)鼐用竦墓_反對。

遷移的農(nóng)村人口如何重建新的社群，又該如何融入到現(xiàn)有村鎮(zhèn)中？總之，不論是個人還是群體，我們不難想象遷移人群所承受的沉重壓力。

遷移群體還面臨著新的就業(yè)問題。農(nóng)民能夠熟練完成田間的各種農(nóng)活，卻很難成為合格的城市務(wù)工者。因此，他們只能零散地在鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)城市的建筑工地上工作。許多遷移農(nóng)民在鎮(zhèn)上按周打工，成了目前的普遍狀況。遷村措施很可能把邊遠村落的勞動力轉(zhuǎn)變成城市邊遠型勞工。

法國詩人查爾斯·阿森納沃爾曾在歌中寫道，陽光下的悲苦稍顯甜蜜，意思是說做鄉(xiāng)下的窮人要比城市的窮人幸福些。城市的日常生活條件可能比農(nóng)場里的要糟糕得多。

因此，當我們把遷村策略納入備選方案時，也應(yīng)充分考慮到上述問題和風險。

If a new village is to be constructed, then it generally has to be established in an existing agricultural area. And this may pose the problem of finding such available land in a country like China where most, if not all, of the appropriate agricultural land is already under cultivation. For example, in Kovalin, Ukraine, back in the 1990’s, large tracts of existing agricultural land were subdivided to accommodate a relocated population from Chernobyl, resulting in the allocation to the newcomers of parcels which were too small for resource-efficient cultivation. Not to mention the open opposition from the existing villagers which emerged.

How does the relocated agricultural population recreate a new community,how does it integrate an existing one in the case of a relocation into an existing town? In any case, one can easily imagine the heavy individual and collective stresses imposed upon a relocated population.

There remains the important question of new employment provision for the relocated population. Farmers are usually quite resourceful and skilled enough to accomplish the diversified tasks required them by their farmstead. Yet, they can hardly be considered as skilled labour fit for city jobs.So. only odd jobs, available mainly on construction sites of towns or cities,are accessible to them; this is already the case for many migrant villagers now working in towns on a weekly basis. So, village removal runs the risk of sending workers from marginal villages to work in cities as marginal workers...

On that subject, a French poet, Charles Aznavour, tells us in one of his songs that “Misery is sweeter under the sun” , which means that it is better to be poor in the village than poor in the city. In cities where daily living conditions may even be worse than on the farm.

Hence, the above problems and risks should not be underestimated when village removal is considered as an option.

鄉(xiāng)村保留：能否保持原貌？

單是“鄉(xiāng)村保留”這一概念就意味著種種負面含義。然而對于當?shù)卣畞碚f，尤其是當人力財力都極其有限的時候，這不失為一個不錯的選項。面對這種誘惑時，人們必須要考慮到將面臨錯綜復雜的社區(qū)環(huán)境變化，這些挑戰(zhàn)還會因各種不可預測的狀況而加劇。

有人認為就讓邊遠村落保持它原有的存在狀態(tài)、不予管制，這樣做是有實際優(yōu)勢的。其中之一就是把改善生活的重擔甩給了村民自己。當然，如果不作為，則不需要什么短期資本和管理的投入，這樣的話，即使長期看來有社會負面影響，短期來說資本和管理投入都較少。

即使（地區(qū)）國民生產(chǎn)總值會增加，但邊遠村落仍然具有某些消極特性：距離限制，服務(wù)和設(shè)施不足，惡劣氣候，農(nóng)業(yè)用地枯竭，長期缺水，總營業(yè)收入低于標準線，有限的農(nóng)業(yè)資本，耕地碎片化，家庭收入僅夠溫飽，失業(yè)率高居不下，生活必需品匱乏，服務(wù)項目數(shù)量有限，質(zhì)量堪憂，社會隔絕……盡管很多農(nóng)村在努力應(yīng)對并嘗試消除這些問題，但這些窘境將長期存在。

Village survival

The mere concept of village survival connotes numerous negative notions.However, it always remains a tempting option for regional authorities,especially in a context of limited available human and financial resources.To this temptation one must add the huge challenges of facing entangled complex community situations, intensified by unpredictable issues.

Likewise and more specifically, some may argue that there are practical advantages in simply allowing a marginal village to exist and last the way it is. One of them being simply that of leaving the improvement burden on the shoulders of the village inhabitants themselves. And of course, inaction costs little in terms of short term capital and managerial investments, if not in longer terms of social and community negative impacts.

Even if the (regional) gross national product should increase, some negative characteristics of a marginal village will nevertheless always remain:constraints of physical distances; accessibility impediments to services and amenities; harsh climate extremes; depleted agricultural soils; chronic water shortages; sub-standard gross operating income; limited farm capitalization; fractioned cultivable plots; survival household revenues; high unemployment levels; scarcity of basic goods; quantity and quality of services; social isolation... Most agricultural villages will always be facing such adversities, while trying to cope with them and even neutralize them.

我們觀察了兩種截然不同的村莊空間結(jié)構(gòu)。第一種結(jié)構(gòu)下的房屋住宅是以傳統(tǒng)緊湊的村莊形式聚集在一起。清晨，農(nóng)民們分散開來，在各家田間勞作，日落而歸。另一種結(jié)構(gòu)則包含了許多相隔甚遠的農(nóng)場，而每座農(nóng)場外圍都是農(nóng)場主的土地。在后者空間結(jié)構(gòu)下，農(nóng)民們的住所多靠近農(nóng)田，卻遠離鄰居和社區(qū)服務(wù)。上述兩種空間模式表明，農(nóng)民長期處于資源匱乏的狀態(tài)下，其勞作和生活條件每況愈下。

從另一方面來看，這樣的邊遠性的特點也反映了分享國家社會經(jīng)濟發(fā)展所取得成果的機會是不平等的，無論在全國還是地方層面上。這也正是扶貧項目要解決的。據(jù)我們所知，在中國，有效分享國有財富已成為一項公認的優(yōu)先政策。

國家或地方旅游業(yè)能否拯救農(nóng)村衰落？答案是肯定的。只要農(nóng)村能提供具有吸引力的旅游項目。但是在多數(shù)情況下，如果連日常用水都不能保證的話，游客是不會來參觀空空如也的村屋的。

那么這些村莊能否保持其原有的樣貌？答案隱藏在另一問題中：當村里的年輕人離鄉(xiāng)轉(zhuǎn)投城市；受過教育的村民也為了工資更高的工作離開農(nóng)村，當只有老人留下的時候，當這群日益年老的村民只局限于從事傳統(tǒng)生產(chǎn)效率低下活動的時候，當農(nóng)村只能靠各類政府補貼生活的時候……農(nóng)村的出路又在哪里？

因此，有人可能會得出這樣的結(jié)論，與維持農(nóng)村勉強生存，搬遷或許更為可取。但除此兩種方法外，還有第三種:鄉(xiāng)村振興。

The above traits of marginality echo the human dramas lived through by the often disseminated rural inhabitants in their struggle to survive. We observed two totally different village spatial organizations. In the first one,houses and apartments are concentrated in the form of a traditional compact village from which farmers leave in the morning to work in their disseminated fields, to be back only after sundown. The other model consists in a series of spread out farmsteads each surrounded by the owner’s plots.In this last case, farmers live near their fields but away from their (centered or dispersed) neighbors and community services. The two above models only show that being a farmer always implies adverse working and living conditions made worse if he lives in a state of chronic meagerness.

From another point of view, the above traits of marginality also reflect the missed opportunity of sharing, on the national or a regional scale, the fruits of the on-going national socio-economic development process. It is this problem that the Poverty Alleviation Program is addressing. To our knowledge, the proper sharing the national wealth is now a recognized priority policy in China.

Can national or regional tourism compensate village decline? Yes, as long as the village has an attractive “tourism offer”. But in many cases, tourists will not be attracted to the rural empty houses simply because of the local shortage of water for daily household use.

To the question: can these villages be maintained as they are, the answer lies in another question: In what state would a village survive when its teenagers and young adults leave for the city, when the most educated persons also leave for rewarding jobs, when only the aging population remains, when this population is confined to traditional low-productivity activities, when it partly lives out of state subsidies of many sorts?

Hence, one is tempted to conclude that the village removal option may even be more desirable then keeping the village in a state of survival. But these two first options may stand next to the option of village revival.

鄉(xiāng)村振興：方案需量身定制

我們在全球包括中國在內(nèi)的許多發(fā)展中國家和地區(qū)，通過多種方式方法，幫助邊遠社區(qū)走出貧困。對邊遠鄉(xiāng)村公開干預的主要目的是：提高生活水平，提供良好的當?shù)鼐蜆I(yè)機會，完善社區(qū)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和服務(wù)。還有一個稍顯抽象的目標，即創(chuàng)造對美好未來的憧憬。

Village revival

In many developing countries and regions spread around the world and including China, we have been involved with elaborating ways and means of pulling marginal communities out of precariousness. The main objectives of public intervention in marginal villages includes: upgrading living standards; providing local quality employment; improving community infrastructures and services. Completed by a less tangible objective, that of raising hopes for a brighter future.

Yet, many institutions may remain hesitant to engage into village improvement programs. Their hesitation may be justified by the important human and material investments required, the continued and long term provision of these inputs, the time delay for any tangible result to appear...

但是，許多機構(gòu)仍對參與農(nóng)村改善項目持觀望態(tài)度。他們的擔憂可能來自于對大量人力物力的投入并且是長期不斷的投入，以及對實質(zhì)效益滯后的擔憂。

因此，鄉(xiāng)村振興計劃的目標就是幫助邊遠社區(qū)實現(xiàn)自給自足和長期的社會經(jīng)濟可持續(xù)發(fā)展。

如何才能實現(xiàn)這一目標呢？這個問題沒有基于單一模式的答案。因為中國的各地區(qū)、各村莊情況都不相同，很難找到一種普遍適用的振興模式或方案。我們需要的不是一個鄉(xiāng)村振興的模式，而是多數(shù)邊遠鄉(xiāng)村能比照適用的干預措施或介入過程，要基于每座村莊的特定情況提出解決方案。特定情況包括兩方面：村莊所處區(qū)域特征和其自身社會經(jīng)濟結(jié)構(gòu)。

然而，任何鄉(xiāng)村振興進程都應(yīng)時刻圍繞和貫徹“發(fā)展”這一概念并且加以應(yīng)用。我們深知，發(fā)展主要源于內(nèi)在動力，這是一種能促使個人發(fā)揮全部潛能、提高福祉的內(nèi)在力量。

但是，不論是個人還是群體，若要他們拋棄幾代人傳承下來的約定俗成的生產(chǎn)生活方式，這種改變往往難以想象，也很難接受。這些方式方法是人們長期積累的知識技能，對他們而言早已諳熟于心；即便不夠高效，也是加以驗證了的，能夠獲得一定程度的生活質(zhì)量。正是這些經(jīng)驗方法將農(nóng)民各自的家庭和社群融合為一個密不可分的集體，所以讓人感到輕松自在。

有些個人或是社群可能不愿意看到這種改變，因為變革促使甚至逼迫他們?nèi)ッ鎸θ晃粗男虑闆r：廣闊的格局、抽象的目標、復雜的過程、難以預測的結(jié)果、不確定能否成功……還有合理規(guī)劃的項目對村民提出了種種新的具體要求：提高技能、學習新技術(shù)、提升產(chǎn)能、進行記賬，有時還要采用常規(guī)工作進度安排……

同理，面對農(nóng)村發(fā)展項目所帶來的一連串變化，有的人可能還沒有完全做好準備。我在實踐中觀察到，寧夏當?shù)氐囊恍┺r(nóng)民對每一項包含補充性創(chuàng)新活動、娛樂項目或是僅僅是經(jīng)過簡單修訂的提議都表現(xiàn)出消極的反應(yīng)。為何人們會如此不情愿？首先，村民們可能還不習慣同外國人打交道。其次，我們給出的一些提議是暫時、簡化的，可能缺乏結(jié)合實際情況的考慮。最后一點，農(nóng)民們甚至不愿意與項目中方負責人談?wù)撟约旱慕?jīng)歷，他們首先要做的應(yīng)是“適應(yīng)”和負責人的關(guān)系。

換言之，任何鄉(xiāng)村和社群發(fā)展方式都應(yīng)成為一個系統(tǒng)性規(guī)劃過程。

Therefore, the general aim of a revival program is to assist marginal communities to attain both self-sufficiency and long term socio-economic sustainability.

How can this be achieved? This is a challenging question whose answer cannot lie in a unique model simply because each Chinese region, each Chinese village is relatively different from the next; hence, no common revival model or plan can be conceived and equally applied to all. But the answer may lie in the elaboration, not of a revival village model, but in a general intervention approach or process applicable, mutatis mutandis( 比照適用 ), to most marginal villages, as long as such an approach be rooted in, each specific village context, a context made up of two related components: the village’s region of insertion and its inside socio-economic structure.

Yet, any village revival process should be subjected to, and imbued by, the concept of “development” and to its application contingencies. We understand that development mainly springs from an inner force, an interior impulse for improving the well-being of the individual in view of actualizing his full potential.

But change is often difficult to envisage and accept, for an individual or a community needs to abandon known, proven and somewhat comfortable ways and means inherited from past generations. Known, since they are part of a cumulative knowledge and know-how. Proven, because these ways and means, if not altogether efficient, have been producing an accepted level of well-being. Comfortable, because they have the advantage of setting families and communities into a securing continuum.

Some individuals or communities may be reluctant to envisage change,because change pushes them, and sometimes even forces them, into the unknown: enlarged perspectives, abstract objectives, complex processes,unconceivable results, uncertain success... Not to forget the new concrete requirements that any well defined project will impose upon villagers:updating skills, training for new techniques, upgrading production, initiating book-keeping, sometimes adopting regular work schedules...

Again, some individuals may not be altogether ready for the sometimes systematic changes implied by village development. As witness the negative reactions of some Ningxia farmers to every proposal made of complementary activity creation, re-creation or of simple modification. Why such reluctance? First, villagers are probably not in the habit of engaging dialogue with foreigners. Second, some proposals were made in a sort of improvised and simplified fashion from our part, while probably lacking the needed contextual knowledge and references. Third, because farmers may be reluctant to discuss their becoming even with Chinese agents:they probably needed to first “domesticate” their relationship with these agents.

Said otherwise, any village and community development approach should be transformed into a systematic planning process.