China differs in significant ways from that in Taiwan, but it is not clear that
these differences ultimately affect outcomes. Both countries have reasonably
complete laws, regulations, and policy statements regarding biodiversity con-
servation. Notwithstanding the greater independence of Taiwan’s Legislative
Yuan since democratization than China’s National People’s Congress,
executives dominate both the jurisdictions, and they do so in the absence of a
firm rule of law. Even in democratic Taiwan, forming and implementing the
law is subject to political and personal linkages (guanxi) as well as being
subject to rent-seeking behavior of individuals and groups.
China subscribes to all relevant international conventions and treaties on
biological diversity – CITES, the Convention on Biodiversity, and Agenda 21
and sustainable development. This participation has benefited China through
financial assistance for environmental mitigation and conservation work.
Although Taiwan is not a signatory of most international treaties, because
China objects to its participation and the legitimacy this would confer on what
China continues to regard a renegade province, nonetheless Taiwan adheres to
most provisions of these conventions.
This volume has described a host of central and sub-national institutions of
government in both states engaged in biodiversity conservation, and large
problems of policy fragmentation. It has also pointed out that implementing
agencies were smaller in terms of personnel, less well-funded, and
considerably less powerful than agencies closer to the core of the states, such
as economic and defense institutions. It has also indicated that power, once
rigidly centralized in both states, has been diffused (for different reasons) to
sub-national governments, and authorities at local levels are far less welcom-
ing of biodiversity conservation initiatives than central agency personnel. Due
to China’s great size, the devolution of policy has greater effects and more
adverse consequences than in Taiwan.
Globally, countries establish protected areas (PAs) to preserve rare and
endangered species and their ecosystems, and the inspection of the condition
of these protected areas is one way to measure the effectiveness of biodiver-
sity conservation policy. China’s system is enormous, including a total
geographical area greater than several large European countries. However,
China and Taiwan have approximately the same percentage of land (15–19
percent) in categories designed to protect species and habitats.
The Chinese system of PAs is far simpler than that in Taiwan. Nature
reserves all have core areas, buffer zones and experimental zones, irrespective
of differences in ecosystem type, the type of species protected, or the socio-
economic conditions of the area. This one-size-fits-all approach contrasts with
the arrangement of protected areas in Taiwan, which broadly follows
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories and is
far more flexible.
222 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan