eating) wild animals while presently, wild deer, pigs, small birds, cats are
raised for the purpose of eating. The revision would allow this, using a permit
system.^40
- Management fees in wildlife areas At the implementation of the WACA
in 1989, and the establishment of many nature reserves and scenic areas, the
government charged relatively high fees to defray the expenses of manage-
ment. The fees are a disincentive to use of the areas and are particularly
onerous for those living in protected areas (almost all of which are populated).
The central government has cut taxes for farmers, and an accompanying
change would reduce or eliminate fees for using protected areas. - Wildlife classification system The WACA established two classes, I and
II, and both were for ‘key’ species, without differentiation as to their degree of
endangerment. Proposed revisions would put all endangered species such as
tigers and pandas into the first class, and then for the other valued species
create a general statement, allowing different ministries and jurisdictions to
permit use based on scientific investigations. This would increase the
flexibility of the classification system. - Critical habitat provisions The WACA’s critical habitat provisions are
weak, and the proposed revisions would extend them in several directions.
One amendment would protect the full range of migratory species, such as the
crested ibis. For example, the crested ibis needs elevated locations for its
nests; if the trees are outside nature reserves they would be protected under the
revisions. - Compensation for wildlife damage If wild animals damage livestock or
crops, farmers may be compensated by local people’s congresses, but in
remote and poor areas, local governments lack financial resources. Thus, there
is an incentive for farmers to kill wild animals, such as tigers, elephants, bears,
alligators, which threaten their livelihood. The proposed revision would
compensate those who suffer losses from wild animals.^41
The overall impact of revisions would be to increase the comprehensiveness
of species protection while enhancing flexibility. Some market-based instru-
ments would be employed to provide incentives for people to appreciate
wildlife diversity (for example by reducing or eliminating fees to observe
wildlife and by compensating those damaged by wild animals). Also, revisions
acknowledge that species bred in captivity require a more flexible treatment in
law.
The biodiversity protection regime we have described is not perfect.
The framework for biodiversity conservation 77