LAUSR

The Pilot Program of Giant Panda National Park System (PGNS) was approved at the end of 2016 (State Council of the People’s Republic of China 2016), a major success for conservation in China. When China had fallen behind economically, it was only able to set aside part of the habitats ideally required to establish nature reserves for pandas, more areas then being used for economic and other activities. However, after several decades of development, China now has the capability of both protecting the giant panda and developing the local community. The PGNS was proposed after more than 30 years of sustained and rapid economic growth in China and summarizing the experiences and lessons of giant panda protection, and is a great contribution to the world’s nature conservation efforts. The PGNS hopes to enhance the connectivity, co-ordination, and integrity of the giant panda habitat, and promote overall protection and habitat restoration (State Council of the People’s Republic of China 2016). However, there has been confusion over whether this usage of “national park” is equivalent to that proposed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which considers a “national park” as generally less strictly conserved than a “nature reserve” (Dudley 2008). The IUCN usage could imply that the name used in PGNS suggested a downgrading of the giant panda protection strategy, which is the reverse of what was intended. The concept of a “national park” as proposed by China therefore needs to be clarified. Nature conservation activities reflect the traditions and practicalities of different countries or nations, has leading to different results. A particular categorization of exotic protection systems (e.g. nature reserves, national parks) should consequently not simply be followed and mechanically applied. While the same methods and technologies can be