Author: Ye Sanmei

The Copenhagen Accord adheres to the principle of "the same but differentiated responsibilities" established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, and makes arrangements for developed countries to implement mandatory emission reduction and developing countries to take independent emission reduction actions, but fails to reach a specific understanding on global emission reduction actions and financial and technical support after 20 12. This shows that today's climate problem is not a simple climate problem, but a complex historical climate, political climate, moral climate and responsibility climate problem. Its core is economic interests and development interests, and its essence is climate hegemonism and anti-climate hegemonism.

The Copenhagen Conference held in June 5438+February 2009 adopted the Copenhagen Accord, adhered to the principle of "* * * common but differentiated responsibilities" established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) and its Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol), and made arrangements for developed countries to implement mandatory emission reduction and developing countries to take autonomous action to reduce their rankings. This shows that today's climate problem is not a simple climate problem, but a complex historical climate, political climate, moral climate and responsibility climate problem. Its core is economic interests and development interests, and its essence is climate hegemonism and anti-climate hegemonism.

I. Connotation and manifestations of "climate hegemonism"

The so-called "climate hegemonism" means that a few developed countries, in order to maximize their own interests and ignore their own responsibilities, try to use climate issues to attack and contain their opponents, restrict the development of developing countries, especially emerging powers, and continue to safeguard their global hegemonic position under the new situation. The "climate hegemonism" of western powers is mainly manifested in three aspects.

1. Implementing environmental trade barriers in the name of environmental protection.

Environmental trade barrier refers to a non-tariff barrier measure that some countries or international organizations regulate some international trade activities that may cause ecological damage and environmental pollution by formulating environmental standards and regulations on the grounds of sustainable development and ecological protection, thus forming obstacles to international trade.

At present, developed countries and regions mainly implement environmental trade barriers, mainly in five forms. First, green tariffs. Also known as environmental import surcharge, it means that some developed countries levy environmental taxes on some imported products that pollute and affect the ecological environment on the grounds of protecting the environment. Among them, carbon tariff is a new type of tariff that many developed countries are going to use, mainly to impose special carbon dioxide emission tariffs on imported products with high energy consumption. The American Clean Energy Security Act passed by the US House of Representatives in June 2009 stipulates that the United States has the right to impose carbon tariffs on products exported to the United States from countries that do not implement carbon emission reduction quotas, including China, and the act will be implemented from 2020. Second, green technical standards. That is, in the name of environmental protection, strict mandatory environmental protection technical standards are formulated through legislative means to restrict or prohibit the import of foreign goods. For example, the EU has established the ISO 14000 environmental management system, which requires that products entering EU countries must meet the specified technical standards from pre-production to manufacturing, sales, use and final treatment. At present, the EU has formed a dual structure management system of technical trade measures, including more than 300 legally binding EU directives and 654.38 million technical standards, covering the safety, hygiene and technical standards of industrial products, the regulation and certification system of commodity packaging and labeling, and the production, processing, transportation and storage of agricultural products. As a result, the EU has become one of the regions that use technical trade protection measures most frequently and strictly in the world. [1] Third, the market access system. Generally speaking, some products are forcibly prohibited from entering the market on the grounds that the manufacturing environment, methods and processes of imported products do not meet the domestic environmental requirements. Fourth, green environmental protection signs. This is a kind of "green" figure attached to the product or its packaging, which shows that the product not only meets the standard in quality, but also meets the requirements of environmental protection in the process of production, use, consumption and treatment, and has no harm to the ecological environment and human health. At present, major developed countries have established environmental labeling systems, which tend to be coordinated and mutually recognized. In addition, there are other systems such as environmental permit system and environmental quota system.

2. Evade one's responsibilities and obligations in the name of endangering the economy.

In response to global climate change, the international community has both principled norms-1992 Convention and specific action norms-1997 Protocol and Bali Road Map in 2007, but most developed countries have not fulfilled their commitments or obligations in emission reduction, capital and technology transfer.

The United States refused to sign the protocol. Although the Clinton administration signed the protocol, it never sent it to the Senate for approval on the grounds that it would seriously damage the American economy. The Bush administration announced its rejection of the agreement. Since Obama took office, he has uncharacteristically promoted climate change and new energy sources around the world, and actively promoted Congress to legislate on climate issues at home. However, the attitude towards the Protocol has not changed substantially from its predecessor, and it is a typical "high profile and low commitment".

Negative emission reduction of western powers. At present, the country with the largest greenhouse gas emission in the world is still an economically developed industrial country. From 2000 to 2006, the greenhouse gas emissions of industrialized countries increased by 2.3%. In countries that refuse to implement the agreement, greenhouse gas emissions are rising rapidly. For example, the United States rose 16.3%, and Australia rose as high as 25.6%. [2] According to the protocol, Japan's greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced by 6% on the basis of 1990, but its actual emissions are 6.2% higher than that of 1990 in 2006. [3] Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have soared by 2 1.3% since 1990, and its per capita emissions are second only to Australia and the United States, ranking third in the world. The medium-term emission reduction target put forward by the Conservative government after it took office is only equivalent to 2% on the basis of 1990, far below the 6% target stipulated in the protocol. [4] In Copenhagen, the United States promised to reduce emissions by 17% in 2020 on the basis of 2005. According to experts' calculation, this target is only equivalent to a 4% reduction on the basis of 1990. The EU promised to reduce emissions by 20% on the basis of 1990, and Japan promised to reduce emissions by 25%.

Western powers have not provided substantial financial assistance or technology transfer to developing countries. The Convention clearly stipulates that developed countries must provide financial support and technology transfer to developing countries. In terms of funds, developed countries proposed in Copenhagen that they could only provide quick start-up funds for three years, and were unwilling to make financial support commitments after 20 12. At present, only the European Union has announced the amount of funds it will provide to developing countries in the next three years, which is equivalent to two dollars per capita in the world. In terms of technology transfer, developed countries are also reluctant. They pointed out that most technologies are private and technology transfer should be obtained through the market. Technology transfer is not conducive to intellectual property protection, technological innovation and development.

3. In the name of * * * responsibility, the finger is directed at developing countries.

Historically, climate warming, as the most important environmental problem of human beings, originated from the western industrialization activities in the middle of18th century, and became increasingly serious with the development of world industrialization. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in18th century to 1950, developed countries accounted for 95% of the total carbon dioxide emissions. During the 50 years from 1950 to 2000, the emissions of developed countries still accounted for 77% of the world's total emissions. The standard energy consumption per capita in developed countries is as high as 28,000 tons, while that in developing countries is only 0.5 tons. [5] As early as 1989, the General Assembly pointed out that "the main reason for the continuous deterioration of the global environment is unsustainable production and consumption patterns, especially in developed countries." Therefore, developed countries, especially the United States, should consciously assume the primary responsibility and obligation of reducing emissions and controlling global temperature rise, whether from the perspective of historical cumulative responsibility or from the perspective of practical responsibility. However, some western powers have shifted their attention and pointed their finger at developing countries in the name that tackling climate change is the common responsibility of the international community.

Exaggerate the "environmental threat theory" of developing countries. Some countries claim that developing countries should bear the main responsibility for the trend of global climate change, and believe that backward agricultural production methods, explosive population growth, comprehensive industrialization process and rapid expansion of urban scale in developing countries have caused a large number of greenhouse gases, and measures must be taken to stop the development trend of developing countries.

Require developing countries to set hard emission reduction targets. However, developed countries such as the United States are unwilling to commit to emission reduction, but they demand that the emission reduction targets of developing countries should be subject to international supervision, measurable, reportable and verifiable, and take the emission reduction commitments of developing countries such as China as a prerequisite for their emission reduction commitments. European Commission President Barroso said: "Both developed and developing countries must set mandatory emission reduction targets. Only when other countries act together will the EU be willing to raise the medium-term emission reduction target to 30%. " [6] The United States even "tied" itself with China, pointing out that "if Americans do more, China should do more", and even thought that if China, India and other big emitters do not enter the framework of quantitative emission reduction commitments, the environmental benefits of emission reduction policies in developed countries will be offset by new emissions in developing countries.

Use various means to limit the access of emerging powers to funds and technical support. Todd [DK] todd stern, the special envoy of the United States on climate change, declared: "I don't think we can see public funds, especially funds from the United States, flowing to China." The British media read China's position out of context. The Financial Times published an article entitled "China doesn't need emission reduction funds from developed countries" in June 5438+February 65438+April 2009, and pointed out that the speech by He Yafei, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of China, showed that "China hinted at giving up the request of obtaining funds from developed countries to fight climate change, which was the first time that one of the main participants in the Copenhagen climate negotiation conference made obvious concessions".

China and other developing countries were designated as scapegoats for Copenhagen's failure to achieve the expected goals. Miliband, the British climate change secretary, accused China of "hijacking" the negotiation process of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Spanish Environment Minister Elna[DK]espaa blamed Venezuela and Bolivia for the failure to reach a substantive agreement in climate negotiations, arguing that these two countries opposed reaching a substantive agreement at the conference out of consideration for the interests of their oil and gas industries.

Second, the essence of "climate hegemonism"

The "climate hegemonism" embodied by western powers in Copenhagen and other international climate negotiations is the general embodiment of the consistent hegemonic stance of western countries. Its essence lies in:

1. Implement new trade protectionism economically.

In recent years, the economic imbalance between developed and developing countries is very obvious. In 2007, the developed economies only grew by 2.7%, of which the United States grew by 2.2%; The economies of emerging and developing economies grew by 8%, with China and India growing by 1 1.9% and 9.3% respectively. [7] Since the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States evolved into a global financial crisis that affected all countries in the world in 2007, the economic growth of developed countries has experienced a serious decline, and the American economy has experienced the worst recession since the 1930s. At the same time, the export of developing countries has maintained rapid growth, so there is a large trade surplus with developed countries. Faced with the rapid rise of developing countries' economic strength and the increasing competitiveness in the field of international trade, developed countries in the economic downturn have revived trade protectionism as a relief strategy in order to maintain their dominant position in the international economy.

As a new type of trade protectionism, environmental trade barriers are favored by developed countries because of their following characteristics. First, protect the rationality of names. The purpose of environmental trade barriers is to weaken the competitiveness of other countries' products and prevent other countries' products from entering their own markets, thus protecting their own industries and markets. However, in the name of protecting the environment, natural resources and life health, it objectively conforms to the historical trend of sustainable development and caters to the wave of green consumption, which can be described as "killing two birds with one stone" and is naturally used by developed countries. Second, the legitimacy of the form of protection and the concealment of the way of protection. There is no contradiction between the implementation of environmental trade barriers and the current multilateral trading system dominated by WTO. On the contrary, some of their propaganda goals and spirits are exactly what the WTO advocates. For example, we should pay attention to environmental protection in trade activities and the relationship between international trade activities and the health and sustainable development of human society. So it is difficult to analyze and locate them. Third, the universality of the protected object. Western developed countries not only use environmental trade barriers to protect industrial sectors caught in structural crisis, so as to protect the declining international competitiveness of western developed countries in traditional trade products, but also use environmental trade barriers to protect cutting-edge technology industries, so as to protect them from taking the initiative in the future world market and improve their comprehensive national strength. Fourth, the multiplicity of protection standards. The complexity and sensitivity of trade and environmental issues make it difficult for countries to reach an agreement on trade-related environmental standards, which leads to different market access standards in different countries. At the same time, the western powers are constantly adjusting and upgrading the technical threshold, and the technical requirements are becoming stricter, newer and more, which often makes it difficult for developing countries to adapt. Fifth, the discriminatory nature of protective measures. Environmental trade barriers impose double standards on domestic products and foreign products, which violates the non-discrimination principle of WTO. Sixth, protect the chain of action. Usually, one or several developed countries impose environmental trade barriers on a product or a trade, which will cause a chain reaction of other countries, follow suit and adopt the same or similar restrictive measures, and eventually form a vicious circle. This domino effect is extremely destructive to the foreign trade exports of developing countries, and its losses are often disastrous. In 2008, countries adopted trade protection measures one after another, which brought the world a direct trade loss of 728 billion dollars. [8]

2. Continue to maintain its hegemonic position in politics? The climate problem is now recognized by the world as a global problem, and the solution of this problem is related to the fate of mankind. In this context, some developed countries try to make use of the moral high ground of "saving the same home for mankind" to make themselves global leaders committed to solving climate change problems, and master the "right to speak", that is, the command, control and pricing power of new international rules related to low carbon, emission reduction, green and environmental protection, and continue to safeguard the global hegemonic position of developed countries in the post-Kyoto era.

Western powers are trying to firmly grasp the right to speak about climate change. In recent years, the developed countries, led by the United States, are unwilling to accept the shackles of international climate supervision within the system and are unwilling to give up their right to speak on climate change issues easily. To this end, although the Bush administration withdrew from the Protocol, it continued to participate in the United Nations climate change negotiations after the Kyoto Round. At the same time, the United States is trying to find new solutions outside the system. The United States and other countries have successively launched international hydrogen economic partnership, Asia-Pacific clean development and new climate partnership and other climate change cooperation mechanisms. Under its impetus, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank also set up climate funds of $5.5 billion and $200 million respectively, with a total amount exceeding that of "institutional" funds. In addition, G8 summit, APEC meeting, EU summit, ASEM meeting, etc. Everyone put climate change on the agenda. This series of "out-of-system" actions of developed countries is to compete with "in-system" laws and regulations and seize the right to speak and take the lead in dealing with climate change. The most obvious thing is that during the Copenhagen negotiations, countries led by the United States, Britain, Denmark and other countries threw out the so-called "Danish text", trying to abolish the Protocol and change the "* * * principle of common but differentiated responsibility" into "* * principle of common responsibility" in order to re-establish the framework and principles of international climate negotiations in favor of developed countries.

Western powers strive to maintain international competitiveness in the post-Kyoto era. Take the United States as an example One of the purposes of 200 1 withdrawal from the Protocol is not to undermine its petrochemical energy hegemony. The domestic and foreign policy focus of the current US government is inclined to low carbon and climate change, which is based on two considerations: First, reducing dependence on traditional energy sources and suppressing energy producers such as Iran and Venezuela. The second is to link climate change with the competitiveness of the United States, emphasizing leading the world through new technologies and enhancing international image and status through low carbon. The United States has realized that the last round of economic growth centered on IT and microelectronics is unsustainable, and it is urgent to find the next round of economic growth points. Following industrialization and informatization, the world economy is moving towards "low carbon". If the United States can become a world leader in the field of low-carbon economy, it will continue to sit firmly on the throne of the world's "boss" for many years to come. [9]

3. Ideological constraints on the development of developing countries, especially emerging powers.

Climate negotiation is not only an environmental issue, but also a right to development issue. On this issue, although there are differences and contradictions within the camp of developed countries, their interests are the same in how to maintain the development gap with developing countries and limit the rise of emerging powers. Therefore, how to limit the growth of energy consumption and carbon emissions in emerging developing countries has become a problem faced by developed countries. To this end, they adopted a two-pronged strategy: on the one hand, they actively promoted the image of developing countries as "the culprit of climate change" and "the main source of environmental threats", occupied the moral high ground and took the opportunity to put pressure on developing countries; On the other hand, it also highly praised the economic achievements and emission reduction adaptability of developing countries, and took the opportunity to put forward high requirements for developing countries.

Developed countries do not consider the development of developing countries. On the one hand, emerging powers such as China and India are in the process of large-scale and high-speed industrialization and urbanization, and the high-density emission of carbon is an insurmountable stage. On the other hand, in the current global industrial division system, the industries of China, Indian and other emerging powers are still at the low end, and there is a big gap with developed countries in terms of industrial technology content, added value and competitiveness. In the new round of international industrial restructuring, they have undertaken a considerable number of labor-intensive and capital-intensive, high-consumption and high-pollution industries transferred by developed countries, and a considerable number of export commodities are labor-intensive and resource-intensive commodities with high energy consumption. At the same time, the population of these countries is still growing, infrastructure construction needs to be improved, people's living standards still need to be improved, and carbon emissions are bound to increase. In this context, the direction and purpose of implementing environmental trade barriers in developed countries are very obvious.

Provoke and divide the relations between developing countries. Miliband accused China of "hijacking" the negotiation process of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, with the aim of provoking relations between China and other developing countries. There are also media reports that the text of the Copenhagen Accord was submitted to the General Assembly privately by the "basic four countries" including China and the United States, without consulting other countries, especially small island countries and least developed countries, and lacked transparency. This kind of comment is quite different from reality, and its intention is self-evident. What's more, the so-called "co-governance between China and the United States" in the field of climate change is inexplicably put forward by the special envoy of the United States for climate negotiations. In fact, it is an excuse to refuse to provide climate financial assistance to China, and at the same time, it requires China to undertake emission reduction obligations that are not commensurate with its development level and sever China's relations with developing countries. In addition, the scale of funds outside the convention advocated by developed countries is much larger than that within the convention, which is of great appeal to many developing countries and intensifies the polarization of developing countries' camps.

Ignoring the efforts and concessions made by developing countries to solve climate change. Taking China as an example, China is the first developing country to regard environmental protection as its basic national policy, and is a signatory and promoter of the Convention and the Protocol. Since entering the 2 1 century, China has taken building ecological civilization, developing circular economy, taking a new road to industrialization and building a resource-saving and environment-friendly society as concrete actions to protect the environment. In recent years, a national assessment report on climate change has been issued, a national leading group on climate change has been established, and a national plan on climate change has been formulated and implemented. In the 11th Five-Year Plan, binding national targets are clearly defined, such as reducing energy consumption per unit of GDP, increasing forest coverage and the proportion of renewable energy. In 2008, the Law of the People's Republic of China on Promoting Circular Economy was adopted, and in 2009, the Resolution on Actively Responding to Climate Change was adopted. In June 2009, 5438+065438+ 10, the government of China announced that by 2020, the carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP would be reduced by 40%-45% compared with 2005. In addition, Brazil, Indonesia and other major developing countries have also issued voluntary emission reduction commitments.

Ignore the difficulties and reasonable demands of developing countries to adapt to climate change. According to the EU's estimation, by 2020, the amount of funds needed by developing countries to adapt to and mitigate climate change will reach 654.38+000 billion euros per year. At present, there are four multilateral channels for developed countries to provide funds: Global Environment Facility, Special Climate Change Fund, Least Developed Countries Fund and Adaptation Fund. As of July 2004, the funds provided by the Global Environment Facility were only $654.38 billion+$800 million, and the co-financing exceeded $9.5 billion. The Adaptation Fund was not launched until the Poznan meeting on 5-4 February 2008. The other two funds have little money. Such a scale of funds is far from meeting the actual needs of developing countries. At the same time, there is still a major problem in the existing institutional funding mechanism, that is, the provisions on the direction of the use of aid funds are too strict, and the recipient countries have no dominance in the application and use of funds, so it is difficult to use the obtained aid funds in areas that developing countries really need. The application and approval procedures of funds are complicated and the operation is not transparent enough, which makes developing countries pay more for getting a small amount of funds.

Third, take concrete actions to actively respond to climate change.

On the issue of climate, while recognizing that western powers are practicing "climate hegemonism", we should also face up to the understanding that the international community has reached at present: climate change characterized by climate warming has become the most important environmental development problem facing mankind in the 2 1 century, and coping with climate warming has become the most urgent task for all mankind at present and for a long time to come. Therefore, China should not only oppose the "climate hegemonism" of western powers, but also actively participate in the actions of the international community to deal with climate change, so as to achieve a "win-win" situation in dealing with climate warming and its own development.

1. Strengthen unity and cooperation with developing countries and safeguard common interests.

Although China and other developing countries have different views on the issue of global warming for various reasons, the position that developed countries should assume more responsibilities and obligations is completely consistent. Therefore, China should strengthen unity and cooperation with developing countries, adhere to the status of the Convention and its Protocols as the main channel, adhere to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", and adhere to the basic attitude that "outside the system" is a supplement to "within the system", so as to urge developed countries to continue to take the lead in reducing emissions and provide financial support and technology transfer to developing countries. Resolutely oppose the implementation of trade protectionism from a narrow environmental definition, and demand that the WTO consider the interests of developing countries when formulating agreements on trade-related environmental issues, and strive for differential and preferential treatment. Adhere to the separation of tariff issues from climate change issues, that is, "tariffs belong to tariffs, and emission reduction belongs to emission reduction". In international climate negotiations, we should adhere to the model of "G77+China" and put forward a position paper or draft resolution in the form of "G77+China" to enhance the negotiating ability and enhance the negotiating position, so as to make the climate negotiations develop in a direction beneficial to developing countries. We should maintain communication and coordination with developing countries through various channels and mechanisms, seek common ground while reserving differences, take into account the special interests of the poorest countries, African countries and some small island countries while safeguarding the common interests of developing countries, break the attempts of western powers to deliberately provoke and divide developing countries, and consolidate the cornerstone of the camp of developing countries. We should bring South-South cooperation into the framework of climate change action, implement the Green Marshall Plan, support developing countries to develop low-carbon economy, give financial assistance to developing countries as much as possible, increase the export of climate-friendly and applicable technologies to developing countries, and shape the image of a responsible big country.

2. Actively promote international negotiations and consultations and strive for the right to make rules.

At present, although the international community has formulated some rules and agreements to deal with climate change, there are still no rules to follow in many fields, and it is urgent to establish a relatively complete international climate legal order. First of all, China should adhere to its consistent position: it advocates that multilateral climate negotiations should be conducted with the United Nations as the core and within the framework set by the United Nations; In international climate negotiations, we should not hesitate to occupy the moral high ground and intervene as a "problem solver" rather than a "troublemaker"; We should make full use of the contradictions of western powers to resolve our own pressures; It is necessary to prevent the country's social and economic development from being strictly constrained and restricted in the near future, and to ensure that the country's long-term rise can be supported by the international climate legal order.

We should strive for the "right to speak" in the construction of international climate legal order, master the initiative and formulation right of "rules of the game", and strive to become one of the leaders in the construction of a new legal order for climate protection. Secondly, China should strengthen international and bilateral negotiations and cooperation on climate issues, especially cooperation with developed countries, and seek more financial and technical support for China to develop a low-carbon economy.

3. Improve the domestic legislation and policy system and actively respond to climate change.

As a "responsible developing country", we should be clear about our obligations and responsibilities, actively develop a low-carbon economy and deal with climate change. We should establish and improve the domestic legal system of environmental protection trade according to the relevant provisions and agreements of WTO. Efforts should be made to train talents who know not only the procedures and legal rules of the WTO, but also the knowledge of climate change and environmental protection, and who are good at international negotiations, so as to reduce international friction on climate issues and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the state and enterprises. Strengthen the macro-management and regulation of the government, formulate a low-carbon economic development system at the national strategic level, formulate a medium-and long-term plan for the development of low-carbon economy, and incorporate the decline in carbon emission intensity per unit GDP into the assessment system. Improve the environmental awareness of enterprises, and urge enterprises to make efforts in strengthening innovation and upgrading technical content. Optimize domestic industrial structure, promote the development of high-tech and high value-added industries, increase the proportion of service industry in production structure and employment structure, realize low-carbon national economy and low-carbon social consumption, promote sustainable economic and social development, and make our contribution to building a harmonious world.

Precautions:

[1], Yang, Lin, Economic and political analysis of the current causes of EU trade protectionism against China, International Trade, No.2, 2009.

[2] "Global greenhouse gas emissions increase" by the Economic and Trade Office of the Embassy in France. See Guangxi Energy Saving Network (165438+20071October 28th).

[3] Tsui Hark released the latest data of greenhouse gas emissions in industrial countries. See Caijing.com June 2009 1 18.

[4] "Harper says Canada will not significantly increase its medium-term emission reduction targets", see China Broadcasting Network, 12, 2009, 1.

[5] Mr Zebic? Knos, "Global Environmental Conflicts in Postal Service? Cold War Era: Connection with Extended Security Paradigm ",in Research on Peace and Conflict, Vol.5,No. 1, p.54.

[6] "Europe has an unshirkable responsibility for the failure of the climate summit to achieve the expected results", see China. February 2009, 2 1.

[7] Liu Hong, "The world economic structure is undergoing profound changes", see People's Daily Online, August 25, 2008.

[8] mahaimin, New Crisis in 2009: Trade Protectionism, Financial Expo, No.3, 2009.

[9] Li Jingyun's China strategy under the pressure of carbon tariff, in Environmental Economy, No.9, 2009. ? (Author: Department of Political Science and Law Management, Chizhou University)