China's Wildlife Protection Law Needs Updating

Last month, China’s State Forestry Administration (SFA) tried to hold the nation’s first-ever auction of wildlife hunting licenses. The event, which was cancelled following widespread public protest, would have granted foreigners the right to hunt and kill several endangered species, including the Tibetan antelope and the wild yak. But the SFA’s auction attempt points to an even broader concern: that the agency is shutting its eyes to existing wildlife laws and realities.

A sound policy should be rooted in sound law. Although SFA considers hunting wild animals legally acceptable, this activity is not specifically approved under China’s Law on the Protection of Wildlife. According to Article 16 of the law, catching or hunting wildlife listed under the “first” grade of protection requires a special license, which is granted only if the killings are “necessary for scientific research, domestication and breeding, exhibition or other special purposes””—not for the purposes of trophy hunting.

First enacted in 1988, the wildlife law protects some 300 species nationwide. While some of China’s wild animals, such as the boar and hare, have experienced population growth in some regions, in general, both wildlife habitats and diversity are in decline. The wild yak population, for example, has declined dramatically due to uncontrolled hunting; the species has been granted China’s highest level of protection and is also listed under “Appendix I” of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), meaning it is “threatened with extinction and general commercial international trade is prohibited.” Given this double prohibition, how could SFA still allow wild yak hunting?

The main driver behind SFA’s bid to open up wildlife hunting is profit, and the agency claims the money would be used to supplement scarce wildlife protection funds. The “preserve or develop” dilemma—long apparent in Chinese wildlife protection—stems from value conflicts in the law. The guiding policy of the law is to “protect, develop, and rationally utilize wildlife resources,” with an emphasis on breeding, domestication, and development rather than protection. This approach, however, lags far behind international conservation policy, which aims to preserve wildlife habitats and to restrict and prohibit wildlife trade.

China Watch Home About China Watch

Encouraged by the “develop rather than preserve” approach, local forestry departments have been able to raise money by promoting extensive hunting and catching of wild animals, or by opening various kinds of breeding farms. The practice of extracting bile from bears, one of the most infamous wildlife cruelty issues in China, is a good example. The administration also supports individuals interested in running wildlife businesses by authorizing permits for wild animal breeding and trading. Such activities have become an important source of income for local forestry departments, as well as a source of wild animal supply for Chinese dining tables.

In 2000, several representatives of the State Council (China’s parliament) appealed to modify the national wildlife law, proposing that the guiding policy be changed to “protecting wildlife habitat, restricting wildlife trade, and abandoning wild animal consumption.” No decisions on altering the law have been announced so far, however. When evaluating an environmental policy, it is important to consider not just whether the policy is “legal” and “feasible,” but also whether it reflects prevailing “green” cultural values—in other words, whether it is in line with a widely held appreciation of nature and respect for life. Today, even in Spain and England, the longstanding traditions of bull fighting and fox hunting are being challenged by citizens seeking to improve the balance between humans and the environment. China’s wildlife protection law, therefore, should go beyond simply upholding the views and benefits of administrators. It’s time to update the law!

Outside contributions to China Watch reflect the views of the author, and are not necessarily the views of the Worldwatch Institute.