Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
But if Chinese lawmakers are prepared for reforms and are truly looking toward
loosening the current restrictions so as to allow some rational use, they recently missed
a golden opportunity. On August 28, 2004, after the usual months of deliberation, the
State Council adopted a long-awaited revision of the 1988 Law. Unfortunately, beyond
adding a few supplementary directions regarding penalties, the 2004 revision contained
only a single change from the 1988 version: in setting up any new international hunt-
ing areas, provinces were no longer required to gain approval from the SFA, but rather
were simply supposed to 42 report the new establishment to the central authorities so
that records could be complete at the national level. 43 (Additionally, because there is
little scope for expanding the number of international hunting areas within China,
even this inconsequential revision appears to be little more than a “symbolic” tilt in
favor of provincial autonomy, which, as noted by Peter Ho, allows various factions in
contention to claim some measure of moral victory without actually changing anything
of substance. 44 )
If after some fifteen years of living with the 1988 Law, the State Council (or, more
properly, those charged with advising it) saw so little need to alter the original, it seems
reasonable to conclude that they still supported its aims. Continuing support for the 1988
Law is also suggested by the frequency of its reiterations and exhortations by the State
Council or national-level bureaus, as if repetition could suffice for rationale.
Even if Chinese authorities do intend, at some point, to loosen the restrictions of the
1988 Law but are simply being very slow in getting around to it, they may find that de-
cades of prohibiting public use of wildlife entirely has created a vacuum where a culture
of sustainable use might otherwise be. By erasing all traditions of sustainable use that
might have existed (at least among many non-Han ethnic groups), any resumption of
controlled hunting would therefore require either the generation of a new cultural ethos
or reliance entirely on the very legal culture that is so weak.
Finally, planning for future expenditures in support of wildlife conservation continues
to move along the lines suggested by the 1988 Law with its emphasis on strict protection
of key species, expansion of captive breeding, and habitat conservation achieved predomi-
nately, if not solely, through establishment of nature reserves. If the tenth Five-Year Plan,
approved by the State Council in March 2001, broke new ground by including a program
explicitly for wildlife and nature reserves, it treaded upon familiar ground when these
plans focused on species present on a list (in this case, an even smaller list consisting of
just fifteen taxonomic assemblages 45 ), expansion of the nature reserve system, and yet
more captive breeding.
The 2001 planning effort included spending goals over five-, ten-, and fifty-year pe-
riods. Although none of the monetary amounts should be taken too seriously (there are
too many ways in which what occurs on the ground may differ from what is budgeted),
these goals provide a rough indication of priorities through 2050. Future spending sug-
gests the same trends seen since the 1980s (and formalized by the 1988 Law): heavy
emphasis on breeding facilities and business ventures that make use of captive animals,
secondary emphasis on nature reserves, and very little emphasis on building systems that
allow wildlife habitat a voice in land-use decisions.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search