Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms represented different, more calculable
environmental risks; yet the ecological cost of rapid economic development
did not enter the regime’s considerations until the 1990s. In Taiwan, the
trajectory of change was more gradual, but industrialization was nonetheless
environmentally degrading. Then, political change and a rapid transition to
democracy brought environmental groups and interests to public and elite
attention.
Contemporary attitudes and opinions reflect these multiple pressures and
the tensions between economic development and environmental conservation.
In both China and Taiwan, awareness of ecosystem degradation and biodiver-
sity loss has grown within the last two decades. When presented with the
trade-off between economic development and environmental protection,
however, respondents in China differ from those in Taiwan. Most mainland
Chinese people are unwilling to sacrifice economic gains to preserve
threatened ecological systems that are not in their immediate back yard,
indicating that the regime’s embrace of sustainable development lacks mass
support. In Taiwan, on the other hand, a growing part of the public rejects the
false dichotomy between economic development and sustainability and
supports conservation policies – even if they might temporarily affect
economic growth targets.
From this background we launched into description and analysis of the
current status of species and ecosystems in China and Taiwan. Problems
confronting ecological preservation in China are far greater than in Taiwan
because of the vast size of the territory (the world’s third largest), limited
scientific expertise, and limited resources available to mitigate jeopardy to
species and adverse modification of habitats. As a result, in 2005, China has
relatively more endangered and threatened endemic species (based on a far
larger species base) than Taiwan, and four provinces – Jilin, Yunnan, Xinjiang,
and Sichuan – contain numerous species and ecosystems hovering on the brink
of destruction. In the 1990s this impending crisis stimulated large-scale
afforestation and reforestation programs, which represent a massive
investment of resources and personnel into biodiversity conservation.
The identification of species and ecosystems at greatest risk has involved
a large number of scientists in China and Taiwan. The listing process in
China had been relatively closed until the most recent formation of the China
Red List; that in Taiwan reflects a system encouraging participation of
those outside government. Scientists are a vital intellectual resource in the
development of biodiversity conservation policy. Although the scientific
establishment is proportionately larger and better trained in Taiwan than in
China, scientists do not appear to have had greater influence over biodiversity
policy. Nevertheless, in both jurisdictions, science does inform policy.
The legal and institutional framework for biodiversity conservation in
Conclusions 221