In the landscape of global economic and political strategies, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) stands as a monumental endeavor for its ambitious infrastructure goals and potential environmental implications. At its heart lies a unique blend of economic policy and environmental consciousness, often termed ‘Green Mercantilism.’ This concept represents a significant shift in China’s approach to international relations and environmental governance, particularly in its engagements with the Global South. The BRI, initiated in 2013, is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in nearly 70 countries and international organizations. It’s considered a centerpiece of Chinese economic diplomacy. However, the environmental footprint of such a vast project has raised crucial questions about sustainability and responsible governance.

The story of China’s economic ascent is one of rapid industrialization and expansion. In just a few decades, China transformed from a largely agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. This remarkable growth, however, came with significant environmental costs. China faces severe challenges, including air and water pollution, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing these challenges, the Chinese government has increasingly prioritized sustainability. The country’s latest Five-Year Plans strongly emphasize green development, and China is now a global leader in renewable energy investment and deployment.

This pivot towards sustainability is not confined within its borders; it extends to China’s foreign policy and international economic engagements.

Historically, mercantilism referred to a policy where wealth was accumulated through trade surplus and export domination. Green Mercantilism adapts this approach to the modern age of environmental consciousness. It involves the pursuit of economic growth and trade advantages with a simultaneous focus on environmental sustainability. For China, this means exporting its green technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, and incorporating sustainable practices in its overseas projects. In the context of the BRI, Green Mercantilism is reflected in integrating green standards and technologies in infrastructure projects. This approach ostensibly aims to create a “win-win” scenario – driving economic growth while promoting environmental sustainability in host countries.

The BRI, encompassing a network of roads, railways, ports, and pipelines, aims to enhance regional connectivity and embrace a brighter economic future. However, its scope and scale bring significant environmental risks, from carbon emissions to habitat disruption. Addressing these risks, China has introduced concepts like the Green Silk Road and has pledged to follow principles of green development in its BRI projects. Environmental governance within the BRI framework involves balancing developmental needs with ecological sustainability. In BRI countries, China’s commitment includes funding green energy projects, such as hydroelectric power plants and solar farms. However, critics argue that the reality is often a departure from these commitments, with some projects exacerbating environmental degradation and contributing to pollution and resource overuse.

For many countries in the Global South, the BRI represents an opportunity for much-needed infrastructure development. However, the environmental impact of these projects has been a point of contention. Proponents highlight the potential for technology transfer and sustainable development, as seen in projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which includes investments in solar and wind power. Conversely, there are instances where BRI projects have sparked environmental concerns. Large-scale infrastructure projects, such as dams and highways, have sometimes led to deforestation, habitat loss, and increased carbon emissions. The challenge for these countries is to balance the immediate economic benefits with long-term environmental and social costs.

China’s approach to Green Mercantilism in the BRI has faced several challenges and criticisms. Critics point out that pursuing economic growth often overshadows the environmental agenda. Concerns regarding the standards and enforcement of environmental regulations in BRI projects exist. Additionally, issues of transparency and local community engagement have raised questions about the sustainability of these projects. Moreover, the debt implications of BRI investments for host countries have been a significant concern.

Critics argue that the debt incurred by some countries could limit their ability to invest in environmental protection and sustainable development in the long term.

China’s approach to environmental issues through the BRI presents a unique model of global environmental governance. This model contrasts with Western approaches, which often emphasize regulatory frameworks and environmental standards. China’s model focuses on infrastructure development and practical implementations of green technology. China has increasingly taken a leadership role in international forums in advocating for global environmental initiatives. Its commitment to the Paris Agreement and its investments in renewable energy are testaments to its growing influence in environmental governance. However, this leadership comes with scrutiny, as global environmentalists and policymakers watch closely the environmental impacts of its BRI projects. The influence of China’s Green Mercantilism extends beyond the immediate economic and infrastructural impacts. It signifies a global environmental governance paradigm shift, offering a different approach to integrating economic development with environmental sustainability.

China-financed overseas projects

Examining specific BRI projects is insightful to understand China’s Green Mercantilism better. For instance, the Padma Bridge Rail Link in Bangladesh, a project under the BRI, is an excellent example of infrastructure development aimed at boosting economic growth while claiming to adhere to environmental standards. However, some local environmentalists have raised concerns about its impact on the region’s ecology. Another example is the solar power projects in the Sahara Desert, part of the BRI’s energy projects in Africa. These projects represent a significant step towards renewable energy but pose challenges, such as land use conflicts and the impact on local communities. These case studies highlight the complexity of implementing Green Mercantilism in diverse geographical and socio-political contexts.

They underscore the need for a balanced approach that considers local environmental and social impacts alongside economic benefits.

Integrating Green Mercantilism within its framework will be a critical observation area as the BRI unfolds. The initiative’s success in harmonizing economic growth with environmental sustainability could provide a blueprint for future international development projects. However, this will require addressing the existing challenges – ensuring stricter adherence to environmental standards, enhancing transparency, and fostering genuine partnerships with host countries. Effectively balancing these factors will determine the BRI’s legacy in reshaping global environmental governance.

Finally, China’s Green Mercantilism and its Belt and Road Initiative application represent a significant evolution in global economic and environmental strategies. While offering potential pathways for sustainable development, particularly in the Global South, it also poses challenges that require careful navigation. The coming years will determine whether this approach can create a sustainable and equitable global development model.