[Editor’s note:] The author of this article is a CBCGDF volunteer. The introduction of any policy, no matter how good the original intention, must consider the possible negative effects. Continuously improve the implementation of policies and improve the level of implementation. People-oriented, the ultimate goal of protecting biodiversity is to make people have a better life. Solving the problem of “Wildlife Ban” and compensation requires the contribution of wisdom from all walks of life to ensure social harmony and stability.
Arrived in Poyang Lake in mid-May to assist in a scientific investigation. Ate at a wild animal farm household. The farm’s owner complained.
“Wild animals under cultivation, whether legally farmed or illegally farmed, belong to the legal property of the farmer.” This illegally farmed animal must not be regarded as legal property. However, those that are legally farmed must be regarded as legal property, and the government should compensate them reasonably.
If the pressure of compensation is large, it is recommended that an argument can be made to establish a buffer zone similar to the market of nature reserves, that is, to allow a certain proportion of the market to digest for a certain period of time to achieve a soft landing of “Wildlife Ban”. Or, strictly implement before the end of the epidemic. After the end of the epidemic, there will be a buffer period of about two to three months to ensure social harmony and the stability of the people’s hearts.
Any policy needs to be changed gently. Need a publicity education/announcement reminder-warning-strictly implemented transition. Yesterday, breeding was encouraged (even poverty alleviation projects), and today it is completely banned. This 180-degree radical transformation will not work.
Volunteer wildlife conservation volunteers called for “Wildlife Ban”, which more pointed to the whitewashing behind farming licences. I totally agree with “Wildlife Ban”, but disagree with no investigation, I disagree to solve the problem, with the enthusiasm of the moment, I disagree to violate the “diversity”. This is an era of civilization, an open era, and we should strive to solve problems in a fair, just and open manner.
It is necessary to actively carry out hearings involving various stakeholders, in particular to respect objective reality, have sufficient investigations, listen to public opinion, and allow people to express public opinion.
Farmers say that real farmers, especially those who reach a certain scale, will not participate in “whitewashing” because the cost of “whitewashing” is too high. I fully agree with this. And at the beginning, it was proposed that since the problem was “whitewashing”, it was necessary to solve the “whitewashing” problem in a matter-of-fact way. Our recommendation is to increase the cost of breaking the law. All parties involved in the violation of the law, including the general public such as illegal killing, transportation, consumption, etc., as well as the leaders or staff of the relevant departments behind the green light, must be severely punished. In this way, innocent people will not be harmed, and honest people will not suffer. The fundamental to solve the problem is to increase the cost of breaking the law, and to reduce the cost of observing the law, or to actually encourage people to abide by the law.
More field investigations should be carried out.
We advocate the protection of biodiversity, the protection of the natural ecological environment, and the harmonious coexistence of man and nature. If this kind of advocacy is based on the premise of sacrificing social harmony, then it has no meaning.
Therefore, we hope and suggest that building an ecological civilization requires seeking truth from facts, conducting more investigations, listening to different opinions as comprehensively as possible, and making decisions calmly and rationally. In the implementation, there must be a buffer in time to give everyone a reasonable time to accept the change.
Original Chinese article:
By / Wang Yanqing Modified / Maggie