Governance of Biodiversity Conservation in China And Taiwan

with respect to lack of resources, incentives, and training in the administration
of protected areas.
Devolution implies impediments to the central direction of policy. In an
enormously diverse nation such as China, there are good arguments for the
devolution of administrative power. A SEPA administrator expressed positive
views toward devolution of environmental protection powers:

‘Although the personnel and basic instructions on work come from the provinces in

most cases, still they must observe national laws. There are many differences across

the country, the areas are very diverse. Local officials know best how to administer

the law. There are some regions, such as in the West, where they lack financial

resources and face development pressures. In these cases, leadership makes a

difference.’^59

When there are strong pressures to develop an industry that may impinge on a
critical habitat or fragile ecosystem, the contradiction between central and
local control becomes most clear. Many of the recent stories of habitat
degradation in China feature a provincial or local government, seeking to
develop the local economy, in conflict with a national law and environmental
office.^60 A SFA manager commented on the plans of Asian Pulp and Paper
(APP), an Indonesian multinational forest products corporation, to plant fast-
growing trees (eucalyptus) for paper production on many thousands of
hectares of leased land in the Yunnan province:

‘Greenpeace protested, saying that growing this type of tree was harmful to the

forest ecology. SFA sent inspectors. Yet the Yunnan provincial government

supported the firm’s plans (and in fact had leased the land to APP). SFA personnel

objected to cutting any old-forest, but in this case the area in question was less than

1000 hectares – (old-growth forest of a total project area of 1.8 million hectares).

There is a serious contradiction between the national and local governments. SFA

has responsibilities for forests; the area is poor with no industry, and the local

government wants economic development. The provincial government leased the

land at only 0.8 yuan an hectare (about 9 cents) per year, a very low rate, to attract

foreign investment and business. Finally, to resolve the contradiction, the National

Development and Reform Commission became involved, and agreed to allow the

project to continue.’^61

In this case as in many others, biodiversity values were sacrificed to permit the
economic development activity to proceed.
Even scientists well-known for their efforts to preserve biodiversity
acknowledge the priority of economic development concerns. Asked why
national policy on biodiversity conservation was often not effective at local
levels, a biologist commented:

‘China is a very large country. It is like the transmission of electricity: there’s

leakage and what is ultimately delivered at long distances is much less than what

86 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan