After the draft of NBAP came out, a number of workshops were held. The participants in these workshops were drawn mostly from three groups: (1) those experts who worked on the NBAP, (2) advisers from the international community, and (3) governmental staff responsible for conservation efforts. Hot spots of tropical, sub-tropical, and temperate forest, grassland, and mountains, wetland, aquatic, coastal and marine ecosystems were identified with the following objectives:

These workshops agreed on several main issues where the NBAP should focus. First, the study of China's biodiversity with emphasis on evaluation of its status and economic value should be strengthened. A bio-geographical system needs to be formulated to serve biodiversity conservation.

Second, it is necessary to set up a classification system and network of national parks and reserves. This will serve to evaluate the distribution of reserves and national parks, their management and representation, and whether they function according to the biosphere reserve model. At the same time, it is also necessary to identify and set up new reserves, so that the goal of 10% of the state territory within protected areas could be met.

Third, the NBAP must be focused on the conservation and continued study of the key protected species in China. Their study and protection needs to be enhanced through appropriate in-situ and ex-situ measures. An integrated conservation and development plan is also recommended.

Fourth, it is also needed to conserve biodiversity in-situ outside reserves, through eco-agriculture, special protection of coastal and marine ecosystems, and demonstration biodiversity management areas.

Fifth, an information and monitoring network for biodiversity conservation must be developed. It is important to improve regional information and monitoring network for biodiversity conservation. This would be done by the collection of data of environmental and social significance and establishing a monitoring technique. This would facilitate the establishment of the state information and monitoring network for biodiversity conservation.

And lastly, more effort needs to be made to coordinate biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. This can be done by facilitating cooperation between local governments and communities and by combining biodiversity conservation with local community development through cooperative management and benefit sharing. The goal is to establish a system of biodiversity management zoning. Once it is set up, continuous effort is required to consolidate and improve the system.

B. NBAP Development

The preparation of the NBAP was initially guided by the CBD. Numerous other international documents were also used as important references. The expert team based the plan’s outline and the evaluation of present status and needs primarily on the CBD. The International Advisory Group and the World Bank’s project manager were also consulted.

The process has involved wide national and international participation through a series of workshops, working groups and expert advisory groups. The first BAP Workshop, in February 1992, established criteria for determining the biodiversity significance of species and ecosystems, nationally and internationally, and the priority for their conservation in China. The second BAP Workshop, in November 1992, assembled for the first time national and international experts on Chinese biodiversity. The participants reviewed the state of knowledge about biodiversity in China that would be necessary for the action plan, developed detailed lists of Chinese ecosystems and species of national and international significance, and assigned priorities for needed conservation action.

During the four-week drafting session held in February 1993, the results of November workshop and the separate drafts that had been prepared by each member of the Leading Group, and combined these into a single, consolidated draft. The draft was reviewed and amended at the BAP Workshop in April 1993 and further reviewed and revised by national and international experts and has subsequently been approved by Government.

The participating institutions each worked out tentative action plans, paying special attention to their function and responsibilities. These action plans were compiled into a first draft of the NBAP through a series of symposia and workshops. The draft NBAP was divided into four main parts, i.e. Biodiversity status, Conservation status, Objectives and actions, and Implementation measures, each being reviewed in group sessions. Three workshops were held to discuss and revise the whole text of the NBAP, which was then distributed to relevant institutions and interested parties for comment.

Soon after the NBAP was developed, a UNEP supported project began a Biodiversity Country Study. Disagreements arose over this initiative - some questioned whether a Country Study was needed when a NBAP had been prepared. It was agreed that the Country Study would be an overall review of the status of biodiversity with much greater analysis of threats and existing conservation effort and achievements, as well as defining further measures and actions needed. The NBAP and the UNEP Country Study were viewed as sister programs with differing primary focuses. The UNEP Country Study was finally completed and published in 1998.

NEPA had the lead role in organizing and coordinating in drafting the NBAP. However, many other institutions played critical roles in the development of the plan because of their respective responsibilities. CAS played the leading role in the study of biological resources. It possesses the most comprehensive information on this topic and provides scientific advice to the State Council. The Ministry of Forestry (MOF) manages the natural reserves, governs the import and export of flora and fauna, implements the Wildlife Protection Law, and formulates regulations for conserving forest ecosystems. The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) is in charge of protecting agricultural and grassland ecosystems and freshwater and marine fisheries as well as other aquatic species. The Ministry of Finance allocates funds for biodiversity conservation activities. The Ministry of Public Security assists in implementing Wildlife Protection Law and Environment Law. It also acts in enforcing any law relating to illegal trade, hunting, and destruction of wildlife and habitats.

The Ministry of Construction oversees zoos, botanical gardens, and national parks and plays an important role in both in situ and ex situ protection and captive breeding programs, however, only representatives of the departments in charge of zoos and botanical gardens participated in the NBAP process. No representatives from the Ministry’s department of national parks (scenic areas) were involved.

In addition to the ministries, other agencies played key roles in the development of the plan because of their roles in land management. The State Oceanic Administration (SOA) oversees the management and use of the marine ecosystem. The State Planning Commission incorporates biodiversity conservation into the state annual development plans and long-term strategies. And the State Science and Technology Commission is in charge of science policy and scientific research activities at the state level.

Participating organizations and experts presented their ideas and comments at different phases of the preparation and revision process. The ideas and opinions of university-based scientists and grassroots groups were collected and considered in the drafting process of the NBAP. However, only governmental agencies and experts contributed directly to formulation of the NBAP. Other sectors, such as business and local communities were not directly involved in the process.

During NBAP development, conservation issues were publicized in local communities and conservation awareness was raised. Relevant government agencies began to pay more attention to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. But funding constraints limited the overall effective response. In any case, many local government agencies ended up emphasizing development rather than conservation. Since they knew little about the relationship between biodiversity conservation and development, conflicts often arose between local government and conservation agencies that had to be resolved by higher authorities.

Under China's current situation, the most appropriate model for implementation of the NBAP was considered to be one supervising agency for coordination, with different local agencies taking the practical biodiversity conservation and management actions. In other words, one coordinating agency should be authorized by the state to work with different sectors, local government, NGOs, and the private sectors to enlist their close cooperation and participation in biodiversity conservation. They could share in the management and the benefits of biodiversity conservation. This model, as recommended by NBAP, has not yet been put in place in China.

C. On the Relationship with Development Planning

As one of the follow up actions of UNCED, the State Science and Technology Commission (SSTC) and the State Planning Commission (SPC) were designated to organize and draw up the “Agenda 21 for China”. This has been followed by the preparation of sector Agenda 21s or Action Plans, including coverage of biodiversity in nature reserves, wetlands, agriculture, marine and coastal areas, zoos and botanic gardens, as well as traditional medicine.

Elements of the NBAP have been picked up in many national research and development plans. In selecting the country’s five-year plan research projects, the SSTC and SPC, major funding bodies for long term research and development programs, considered the NBAP. The projects on biodiversity information management, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, the preservation of genetic diversity, and ex situ conservation of endangered species of animals and plants are part of the key research programs in CAS’ Eighth Five-year Program and the SSTC. The National Science Foundation further supported the programs under the Ninth Five-year plan. UNDP/GEF and World Bank provided assistance for some of these programs. The Chinese Government has provided billions during the last decade for forest conservation.

As biodiversity conservation and sustainable development is the concern of every citizen, it is necessary to get support from society as a whole. Only when it is listed formally in the state economy and social development plans, will it receive adequate attention from all sectors and will conservation objectives be achieved. Agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fisheries, water management, medicine, construction, transport, finance and commerce all should play an important role in biodiversity conservation and vigorously take up their task. This requirement should be reflected in economic development plans and addressed in related laws and regulations. All resource development should continue on this basis.

But there is a challenge in defining the benefits and economic incentives for biodiversity conservation. People working at the front--such as owners and potential protectors of resources--usually do not receive any compensation for taking conservation actions. Direct economic benefits from other resource uses maybe lost and living standards may degrade because of well-meaning conservation efforts. The globalization of the economy often works against local conservation efforts. Market forces are causing accelerated pressure on biodiversity resources. If the owners are not compensated properly, conservation objectives will not be achieved. Conservation should not be the sole responsibility of local people who depend on local resources for their basic needs. Inequities quickly arise where one (usually distant) community becomes rich through aggressive exploitation of biodiversity resources, while another community (usually local) becomes poorer by conserving their environment.

Since biodiversity conservation is a crosscutting theme, all government sectors should make their contribution to the formulation and implementation of the NBAP. For example, local governments should consider the NBAP when making their development plans. NBAP strongly recommended that biodiversity action plans be prepared at provincial level. However, as of this writing, no province has taken this step. It is quite questionable whether those governors of provinces or towns have been aware of the existing NBAP or biodiversity conservation. This is not surprising because there was little consultation at the provincial level during NBAP formulation, and also there was less publicizing of the NBAP. Nevertheless, some sectoral or thematic biodiversity action plans have been prepared.

D. Implementation

A legislative framework for biodiversity conservation has, in principle, been set in place. This legal system includes articles from the Constitution, related laws, administrative regulations, local regulations and laws and rules. The NBAP is a key part of the policy framework to conserve China’s biodiversity.

China has achieved a great deal in biodiversity management through in-situ and ex-situ conservation, scientific research, public awareness and legislation. However, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use practices are still far from satisfactory due to the lack of a coordinating national agency and sufficient funding. There are 1,149 reserves, covering 8% of the nation, more than 170 zoos and animal breeding centers, 110 botanical parks and tree parks, and dozens of natural history museums and collections. However, effective management is lacking or inefficient because of shortage of well-trained staffs and necessary funding. Some forest parks and scenic areas for tourism are not included in the list of protected areas, and were usually excluded in conservation planning or activities due mainly to the sectoral barriers and conflicts

The main mechanisms and tools being used for the implementation of biodiversity management include:

E. Monitoring and Follow-Up

It was proposed that the monitoring mechanism will determine whether allocated funds are used for the proposed actions and whether laws and regulations are consistent with actions proposed in the plan.

Ministries and government agencies will implement their portions of the NBAP. At the state level, SEPA has taken over the responsibility for monitoring, evaluating the actions, and coordinating those sectors responsible for various aspects of biodiversity conservation. In the past, the State Council Environmental Protection Committee was in charge of evaluating and coordinating overall implementation of NBAP; however, it is not the case at present.

Environment monitoring stations focusing on pollution status have been set up in all provinces of China. A similar network is suggested for monitoring the health of ecosystems. Presently the experimental field station network under CAS and some reserves are conducting this form of monitoring, and, if authorized and strengthened, it could function as a national ecosystem-monitoring network. But there are no standard indicators and system of management and reporting so that monitoring results influence the planning and decision making process. The information gained is also fragmented. Although the BWG conducted some monitoring and evaluation, the system needs to be enhanced.

China submitted a ‘national report’ to CBD COP 4 in Bratislava including a chapter on the NBAP. The formulation process and its main objectives and essential actions were highlighted, but it could not be considered as a comprehensive review NBAP implementation. No form review of that kind has been undertaken. As stated in the COP 4 report, the NBAP set out objectives for seven priority areas and 26 action options. According to the importance, urgency and feasibility of conservation, eighteen projects were identified for immediate implementation. Priority protected ecosystems and priority protected species were also identified in the NBAP. Therefore an initial framework for evaluation and revision of the Plan is in place, but as yet, no commitment made to undertake such a review.

A. Lessons Learned during the development of NBAP

Initially, it was suggested that an expert team from various disciplines and different parts of the country should prepare the NBAP. In addition, some international experts with extensive knowledge of China were to be involved. The team would have assessed the status and problems of biodiversity and set priorities objectively and scientifically. Furthermore, at regular intervals, representatives from various sectors would be invited to participate in formulation, by providing views and information and comments on draft material. However, this approach was not followed. Instead, the project was conducted more through formal administrative than scientific channels by asking each sector to send officially their representatives to participate in the NBAP preparation. There were also conflicts caused by improper administration and bureaucratic interference while the roles of the Expert Team and views of experts were not adequately considered. In addition, the different opinions between the World Bank and the Chinese counterparts in administering the NBAP project caused confusion, which could have been dispelled if the Expert Team had met more regularly and played its role as guide and arbiter properly.

Because of the administrative approach, conflicts arose among different sectors in preparing the NBAP, particularly in the process of identifying those priority areas linked to fund allocation in future implementation. This problem was solved, to some extent, through compromises reached by the Leading Group and/or through the Expert Team.

Among other difficulties, the frequent change of personnel within agencies, during revisions of the plan also created much confusion. Those changes caused inconsistencies from version of the NBAP to the next.

From a technical point of view, the lack of accurate scientific data and information, especially in the form of a national biodiversity database, made it difficult to get a clear picture of the current status of ecosystems and species, and consequently to set rational priorities for action. Three international workshops held during various NBAP phases proved useful in listening to experts' suggestions and recommendations.

Although the Ministry of Construction sent representatives to participate the formulation of NBAP, the appropriate departments were not always involved. Given its overall responsibilities, the sections that are most involved with biodiversity issues are the sections dealing with zoos, botanical gardens, and national parks and should play an important role in both in situ and ex situ conservation. However, no representatives from the Ministry's department of national parks (scenic areas) took part. It was a gap in the consideration of the protected area issues in the Plan. The reasons for this oversight were mainly due to inappropriate understanding and in-sector coordinating.

The main obstacle faced in NBAP formulation was the lack of awareness concerning the significance of biodiversity conservation for economic development. The belief of most administrative agencies was that biodiversity conservation was in direct conflict with economic development--which had the higher priority. They were not as aware of the long-term benefits of biodiversity conservation to sustainable economic development. Also there was little understanding of the potential contribution of economic measures to biodiversity conservation. The underlying assumption was that natural resources are free goods that can be used without cost or paying compensation.

Many projects proceeded without consideration of the economic costs of environment degradation and protection. Many seemingly beneficial and profitable projects would not be cost-effective if all affects on the environment and biodiversity resources were accounted for. Many activities that utilize natural resources receive direct economic gain for the selling of those resources, but do not have to pay for the degradation of the future use of those resources. Examples of this may be logging of natural forests, farming steep slopes and grasslands, stocking lakes for farming purposes, exploitation of plants for traditional Chinese medicine, harvesting of wild animals, inshore fisheries and introduction of alien species--all of which can have serious impacts on reduction of native biodiversity.

Of special ongoing concern may be the lack of awareness by the central government, which still does not include allocations for biodiversity conservation in the state budget. Various sectors make provision for biodiversity conservation within their own discretional funds but these relatively small allocations do not meet the need.

B. Lessons Learned during NBAP Implementation

The NBAP is a long-term program, which needs to be carried out as a permanent part of government business. However, there has not been a review of the development and implementation of NBAP. One reason has been uncertainty over whether or not to continue the NBAP Leading Group and Expert Team. Both these bodies ceased to function after the NBAP was launched. Also, the CBD Coordinating Group has focused on CBD implementation in general rather than having specific responsibility for NBAP implementation. The NBAP requires regular review and revision but to date there has been little follow up.

The NBAP should be implemented under the coordination of a state-leveled supervising agency such as the former State Council Environmental Protection Committee as recommended in the plan. Yet, SEPA unlike its predecessor, the State Council Environmental Protection Commission, does not operate under the Council, which has made effective coordination of NBAP implementation difficult. SEPA lacks the necessary authority. Thus, elevating coordination responsibilities to a higher administrative level still need to be considered.

When the NBAP was launched, a detailed national implementation plan was needed as an operational framework for implementation by all arms of government. This was not prepared, therefore each sector implements the NBAP separately based on its own interpretation of priorities, focus, and financial situation. There has been little coordination against an agreed annual plan, especially in cross-sectoral activities, monitoring and evaluation, exchange of experiences, and allocation of funding.

Improvement of legislation is vital for implementation of the NBAP. For instance, there is an urgent need to revise the existing laws and to develop new laws or regulations to conserve species diversity, to control invasive species, improper introduction of species, animal welfare, in situ conservation of natural ecosystems and species diversity, and to deal with sustainable use of biodiversity. Legislative provisions for strategic planning of protected areas is needed to improve the existing protected areas system and its management.

Insufficient financial support is another basic problem in NBAP implementation. More funds should be allocated through the State budget to biodiversity conservation. Also increased support from individual government agencies, NGOs, the private sector and innovative forms of financing needs to be explored.

Public education and publicizing NBAP implementation should be strengthened. Most forms of communication activities relating to the plan ceased once it was prepared. Effective implementation of the NBAP depends on a thorough knowledge of the importance of biodiversity resources and their management to long-term sustainable economic development. Yet, government officials and enterprise managers lack appreciation or understanding of their critical role in achieving conservation and sustainable use objectives.

Although considerable effort has gone into biodiversity conservation education, there is still a big gap between what was recommended in the NBAP and what has been achieved--relevant education and training material are inadequate. NGOs, through their conservation education programs, have the capacity to mobilise youth and the general public to assist the government in biodiversity conservation. They should be given more support and incentives to play a greater role. A long-term education program should be mounted for the public that includes decision-makers, governmental staff and the private sector.

Implementation of the CBD and NBAP should be based on scientific data and information. Most protected areas, remaining forest blocks, new plantations, marine areas and rural habitats lack any form of biodiversity inventory on which to base sound management strategies. Sites for which data do exist, have in most cases, been greatly transformed since the original inventories were compiled. Much of the previously collected information is out of date or taxonomically imprecise. Moreover, because of sectoral barriers, the existing information on taxonomy, distribution, and habitat is not readily available, nor shared, and has not been fully utilised. Chinese science universities do not have special taxonomy and field biology curricula. The shortage of taxonomy and field specialists is a key problem facing biodiversity studies in the country and NBAP implementation.