搬迁，保留，还是振兴？中国边远乡村的三种选择

文/ Pierre S. Guertin

译/董方源

二十多年前，我们第一次在几个国家参加国际志愿项目时，就对边远村落的振兴产生了兴趣。说到中国农村，最近中国政府开展扶贫工作，其目标是帮助边远地区七千万人口改善恶劣的生活条件，即使不能完全消除贫困。这再一次引起我们的注意。

在中国，村庄是以分散或聚集形式分布，规模比城镇小，居民从几百到几千不等，由此组成一个由村领导管理的行政实体。这种行政体有时由多个小村落组成。

边远村镇意味着它处于社会经济体制的边远，甚至难以算作是该体制中的一部分。简言之，边远村镇需符合一系列有关空间组织、生物物理资源、人口结构、农业经济、家庭财富收入和社区生活的复杂标准。

我们看到，生活在恶劣环境中的村民们物质上普遍匮乏。农村留守群体中，老年人占多数，他们似乎既向往城市生活，又不愿放弃农村的有形财富（包括房屋住宅、生产资产、邻里关系和习惯了的日常生活）。另外，现在的农民们既能下地劳作，也会使用网络。鉴于上述情况，人们不禁要问：如果适当的资源到位，是否能让每个边远村落都脱贫？

下列三种方式或许会提供一些解决思路。

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.

乡村旅游带动了经济发展，图为游客在浙江东洲街道陆家浦村的葡萄采摘园内采摘葡萄 （图片来源：新华社）

乡村搬迁：安置和融入的难题

这个方式听起来很是激进，就是将一个村里的全部人口迁至别处，村里的建筑要么废弃要么拆除。这种做法的主要优点在于彻底地解决问题，把村子从地图上抹掉。如同那句俗语“一了百了”，这是个根治疗法。

据我们所知，中国在村庄重新安置上已经做出了不少尝试：比如在宁夏大武口区石嘴山、黄土高原以及经历了2008年汶川地震的绵阳。但却收效甚微。缘何如此？这是因为搬村造成了双向难题，首先是上游问题，包括可能破坏社会网络和日常社区活动，还有就是对祖屋、农业设备和建筑的破坏，农民们也失去了曾经的耕地。

然后还面临着为搬迁村民选择合适新址这样的下游难题。英国、苏格兰、柬埔寨和法国新镇建设的经验告诉我们，乡村村址往往承载着象征性意义，人们常把它与历史事件联系到一起。同时，在一些发达国家，适合建立新的村落的地方往往是最初的（如果不是原始的）景观或生产用地。例如，银川的一片土地和宁夏中部地区就是这种情况。另外，不管是重建村庄还是把那些失去家园的村民安置到现有城镇中并新建公共住房区，这些都需要大笔资金投入。

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.

假如要建一座新村庄，一般需要在现有的农业区域建设。对于像中国这样的国家，大部分合适的农业用地都已经用作耕地，要想找到合适的土地是有些困难。例如，20世纪90年代，乌克兰的Kovalin地区，大片的农业用地被分割，用于安顿来自切尔诺贝利的人口，新来者分到的土地面积很小，难以进行资源有效耕种。更不用说此举遭到当地居民的公开反对。

迁移的农村人口如何重建新的社群，又该如何融入到现有村镇中？总之，不论是个人还是群体，我们不难想象迁移人群所承受的沉重压力。

迁移群体还面临着新的就业问题。农民能够熟练完成田间的各种农活，却很难成为合格的城市务工者。因此，他们只能零散地在乡镇城市的建筑工地上工作。许多迁移农民在镇上按周打工，成了目前的普遍状况。迁村措施很可能把边远村落的劳动力转变成城市边远型劳工。

法国诗人查尔斯·阿森纳沃尔曾在歌中写道，阳光下的悲苦稍显甜蜜，意思是说做乡下的穷人要比城市的穷人幸福些。城市的日常生活条件可能比农场里的要糟糕得多。

因此，当我们把迁村策略纳入备选方案时，也应充分考虑到上述问题和风险。

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.

乡村保留：能否保持原貌？

单是“乡村保留”这一概念就意味着种种负面含义。然而对于当地政府来说，尤其是当人力财力都极其有限的时候，这不失为一个不错的选项。面对这种诱惑时，人们必须要考虑到将面临错综复杂的社区环境变化，这些挑战还会因各种不可预测的状况而加剧。

有人认为就让边远村落保持它原有的存在状态、不予管制，这样做是有实际优势的。其中之一就是把改善生活的重担甩给了村民自己。当然，如果不作为，则不需要什么短期资本和管理的投入，这样的话，即使长期看来有社会负面影响，短期来说资本和管理投入都较少。

即使（地区）国民生产总值会增加，但边远村落仍然具有某些消极特性：距离限制，服务和设施不足，恶劣气候，农业用地枯竭，长期缺水，总营业收入低于标准线，有限的农业资本，耕地碎片化，家庭收入仅够温饱，失业率高居不下，生活必需品匮乏，服务项目数量有限，质量堪忧，社会隔绝……尽管很多农村在努力应对并尝试消除这些问题，但这些窘境将长期存在。

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.

我们观察了两种截然不同的村庄空间结构。第一种结构下的房屋住宅是以传统紧凑的村庄形式聚集在一起。清晨，农民们分散开来，在各家田间劳作，日落而归。另一种结构则包含了许多相隔甚远的农场，而每座农场外围都是农场主的土地。在后者空间结构下，农民们的住所多靠近农田，却远离邻居和社区服务。上述两种空间模式表明，农民长期处于资源匮乏的状态下，其劳作和生活条件每况愈下。

从另一方面来看，这样的边远性的特点也反映了分享国家社会经济发展所取得成果的机会是不平等的，无论在全国还是地方层面上。这也正是扶贫项目要解决的。据我们所知，在中国，有效分享国有财富已成为一项公认的优先政策。

国家或地方旅游业能否拯救农村衰落？答案是肯定的。只要农村能提供具有吸引力的旅游项目。但是在多数情况下，如果连日常用水都不能保证的话，游客是不会来参观空空如也的村屋的。

那么这些村庄能否保持其原有的样貌？答案隐藏在另一问题中：当村里的年轻人离乡转投城市；受过教育的村民也为了工资更高的工作离开农村，当只有老人留下的时候，当这群日益年老的村民只局限于从事传统生产效率低下活动的时候，当农村只能靠各类政府补贴生活的时候……农村的出路又在哪里？

因此，有人可能会得出这样的结论，与维持农村勉强生存，搬迁或许更为可取。但除此两种方法外，还有第三种:乡村振兴。

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.

乡村振兴：方案需量身定制

我们在全球包括中国在内的许多发展中国家和地区，通过多种方式方法，帮助边远社区走出贫困。对边远乡村公开干预的主要目的是：提高生活水平，提供良好的当地就业机会，完善社区基础设施和服务。还有一个稍显抽象的目标，即创造对美好未来的憧憬。

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，许多机构仍对参与农村改善项目持观望态度。他们的担忧可能来自于对大量人力物力的投入并且是长期不断的投入，以及对实质效益滞后的担忧。

因此，乡村振兴计划的目标就是帮助边远社区实现自给自足和长期的社会经济可持续发展。

如何才能实现这一目标呢？这个问题没有基于单一模式的答案。因为中国的各地区、各村庄情况都不相同，很难找到一种普遍适用的振兴模式或方案。我们需要的不是一个乡村振兴的模式，而是多数边远乡村能比照适用的干预措施或介入过程，要基于每座村庄的特定情况提出解决方案。特定情况包括两方面：村庄所处区域特征和其自身社会经济结构。

然而，任何乡村振兴进程都应时刻围绕和贯彻“发展”这一概念并且加以应用。我们深知，发展主要源于内在动力，这是一种能促使个人发挥全部潜能、提高福祉的内在力量。

但是，不论是个人还是群体，若要他们抛弃几代人传承下来的约定俗成的生产生活方式，这种改变往往难以想象，也很难接受。这些方式方法是人们长期积累的知识技能，对他们而言早已谙熟于心；即便不够高效，也是加以验证了的，能够获得一定程度的生活质量。正是这些经验方法将农民各自的家庭和社群融合为一个密不可分的集体，所以让人感到轻松自在。

有些个人或是社群可能不愿意看到这种改变，因为变革促使甚至逼迫他们去面对全然未知的新情况：广阔的格局、抽象的目标、复杂的过程、难以预测的结果、不确定能否成功……还有合理规划的项目对村民提出了种种新的具体要求：提高技能、学习新技术、提升产能、进行记账，有时还要采用常规工作进度安排……

同理，面对农村发展项目所带来的一连串变化，有的人可能还没有完全做好准备。我在实践中观察到，宁夏当地的一些农民对每一项包含补充性创新活动、娱乐项目或是仅仅是经过简单修订的提议都表现出消极的反应。为何人们会如此不情愿？首先，村民们可能还不习惯同外国人打交道。其次，我们给出的一些提议是暂时、简化的，可能缺乏结合实际情况的考虑。最后一点，农民们甚至不愿意与项目中方负责人谈论自己的经历，他们首先要做的应是“适应”和负责人的关系。

换言之，任何乡村和社群发展方式都应成为一个系统性规划过程。

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( 比照适用 ), 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.