The amended law provides for “gradual and categorized management of wild animals bred in captivity”. In terms of protection priority, the “three haves” animals are behind the “national key protected wildlife”. The latter are divided into Class II and Class I, with Class I animals enjoying the greatest protections and carrying the heaviest penalties for offenses involving them.
Some of the changes in the amended law have been interpreted as relaxing controls on the captive breeding of “three haves” animals. In Article 25, the eligibility condition for breeding such animals has been changed from “A license for breeding in captivity must be obtained” to “A file must be filed with the relevant local authority. Moreover, the maximum fine for failing to comply with this obligation is only 2,000 yuan (280 US dollars).
The Shan Shui Conservation Center, a conservation organization, has writing that filing a dossier is not sufficient to ensure that captive breeding facilities are adequately monitored and are not being used to launder wild-caught animals. This could weaken agencies’ oversight and protection of “three haves” animals, the organization adds.
Another example is Article 29, which provides that nationally protected wild animals for which captive breeding techniques are “mature and well established” may be transferred to the National Directory of Key Protected Wildlife Species for captive breeding. In practice, this means that more species of wild animals with national Class I and II protection can be bred and bred. At the same time, “captive bred populations” for which breeding techniques are well established may be removed from the list of key protected wildlife species at the national level.
However, in terms of appearance and behavior, it is difficult to distinguish wild animals caught in the wild among those bred in captivity for several generations. Those who think so can also pass off wild-caught animals as captive-bred animals by exploiting loopholes in the law.
The gaps in artificial breeding provisions mean that trade in animal products is equally problematic. Article 30 of the amended law specifies that the trade in “wild animals and their products mainly concerns populations bred in captivity”. An animal advocate, who does not wish to be named, told China Dialogue: “Such regulations are difficult to enforce in practice. Until there is clear and direct evidence of poaching, there will be no way to verify whether products come from wild animals or animals bred in captivity.
Others have a different point of view. In a interview According to China Environment News, Qin Tianbao, director of the Research Institute of Environmental Law (RIEL) at Wuhan University, says the new law revision is more of a “difference in regulatory approach » than a reduction in administrative powers:
“Different ratings and categorizations correspond to different management systems, and a relaxation of procedures does not equate to a reduction in powers… The management system, in turn, with ratings and categorizations that correspond to conservation needs, is then adjusted and optimized accordingly. »
“Storage” versus “use”
At the heart of the wildlife farming debate are the concepts of ‘conservation’ and ‘utilization’.
Before the last update, since it came into force in 1988, the Wildlife Protection Act had been amended four times – in 2004, 2008, 2016 and 2018. The aim of the 1988 legislation, imbuing all its provisions, was as follows:enhanced resource conservation, active domestication and selection, and rational development and use“.
The law has been changed with increasing frequency over the past 20 years, along with periodic outbreaks of wildlife-related public health incidents.
“There has been some progress,” said Zhou Ke, a law professor at Renmin University of China. “Through successive amendments, the provisions relating to the breeding of wild animals moved from ‘active domestication’ (1988) to ‘reasonable use’ (2004) to ‘regulated use’ (2022 ).»
Following a lot of talk about “conservation” and “use“regulated use” remained the guiding principle of the law until 2016, while retaining the notion of “use of wildlife as a resource”.
The situation changed abruptly with the appearance of Covid-19 in 2020, when it was suspected that the virus originated in wild animals. Three months into the pandemic, China banned the consumption of wild animals as food. This decision was heavily influenced by the public mood at the time and concerns about the risks of breeding and eating wild animals. He was considered the “strictest wildlife conservation measure” nowadays.
Zhou Ke explains, “People began to strongly suspect a connection between wild animals and the epidemic, especially the consumption of wild animals…and the public demanded that this risk be addressed by law. »
However, in 2022, with the global economy slowing down, longstanding public concerns about climate and environmental issues have begun to gain momentum. disappear. Wildlife and public health concerns are diminishing as pressing economic issues come to the fore.
An activist from an animal welfare organization, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: “Changing the law also involves trade-offs (between protecting industry and protecting wildlife). When public opinion about wild animals and public health declines, coupled with economic concerns, the voice of ‘industry’ becomes extremely important.”
Such compromises are also reflected in the contradictions between the provisions of the amended law, emphasizing “conservation” on the one hand, while emphasizing “scientific use” and “regulated use”. ” the other. Among legal professionals, there are also those who believe that wildlife conservation could in practice give way to commercial exploitation.
A massive industry needs a more precise application
Zhou Ke asserts that the breeding of wild animals should never have become a commercial industry. “When the Wildlife Protection Act was introduced in 1988, it provided for the protection of wildlife as a natural resource,” he says. “Active breeding and domestication, as proposed at the time, was not driven by the goal of developing an industry. Commercial use simply meant farming for commercial purposes, but conservation of natural resources should have been the real goal. »
Raising wild animals is widely seen as a way of escaping people from poverty, not a way to increase wild animal populations. For example, the giant salamander has a breeding population of over one million nationally, but in the wild it is on the brink of extinction.
China’s wildlife breeding, trading and processing industry generates an annual income of around 500 to 600 billion yuan (70 to 80 billion dollars) and employs more than 14 million people. There are already hundreds of species of wildlife bred in captivity across the country, and supply chains have developed for the intensive farming of snakes, deer, crocodiles and frogs.
Before the coronavirus, bamboo rat breeding had become a specialty in Guangxi, with an annual income reaching more than 2 billion yuan. The size of the sector makes it very difficult to completely ban the farming of wild animals.
A more granular approach to conservation management may offer a way forward. Liu Jinmei, director general of the Chinese environmental protection organization Friends of Nature, said in an interview“Given the current catch-all regulations and the proliferation of illegal practices, as well as the lack of professional judgment in grassroots law enforcement, it is extremely difficult to obtain evidence and hold it. Enforcement costs will only decrease and efficiency will increase if legal provisions can be made more granular.
Zhou Ke believes that the next step, going beyond the wildlife protection law, will involve more targeted and specialized administrative regulations.
“The latest amendment seeks to restrict development and use, and its original intent was good. Objectively, however, once implemented, the effect is to encourage the commercial exploitation of wild animals and commercial breeding and domestication practices. So, in the wake of the last amendment, we should prevent such consequences … from happening again, by avoiding these kinds of mistakes through localized administrative legislation.”
This article was originally published on Dialogue with China under Creative Commons license.