A recently announced plan to move the Beijing Zoo out of the city proper has drawn impassioned public protests.

A number of non-government organizations and many individuals have devoted themselves to protecting the zoo, as well as citizens' rights and interests.

The Beijing Zoo was built in 1906 by the regime of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). Historic and also modern, it is now the third largest such facility in the world, serving as a good place for the public to spend leisure time while learning more about animals and nature.

Yet some local authorities are quietly brewing a plan to move the zoo out of the city proper and merge it with a commercial wildlife park.

The topic was first broached during the Beijing People's Congress (BPC) and the Beijing People's Political Consultative Conference (BPPCC) in February.

Chen Ruijun, a BPPCC member from the Beijing Agricultural, Industrial and Commercial Development Trade Company, put forward a proposal suggesting the zoo be relocated. Guo Baodong, a BPC deputy and local official from Daxing District in suburban Beijing, followed up by suggesting Beijing Zoo be moved to Daxing and merged with Beijing Wild Animal Park, which is 35 kilometers south of the capital.

Guo said last year's outbreak of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and this spring's bird flu crisis urged him to rethink the relationship between man and animals. He argued the zoo's present location is a threat to public health, causes traffic congestion and is not good for animal welfare.

But as thousands of proposals are put forward during each session of the congress and conference, few believed such a controversial one would become reality.

It was subsequently revealed that as early as last October municipal authorities had made a similar proposal to heads of the zoo, but stressed the plan should be kept confidential.

According to Beijing-based Outlook Weekly magazine, a Beijing Engineering Consulting Company, entrusted by Beijing Development and Reform Committee, organized small-scale symposiums on February 25, April 15 and April 21 to discuss the zoo's relocation. Around 30 officials, experts and scholars were invited each time - but representatives from the zoo itself were excluded from the first symposium.

The topic for discussion at these symposiums was only where the zoo should be moved. But why? That was out of the question. Organizations stressed that the decision to move had already been made but should be kept confidential.

The April 15 symposium asked the districts of Daxing, Yanqing and Shunyi to hand in their bids. But consensus was reached at the April 21 meeting that the zoo would be relocated to Daxing and likely merge with the Beijing Wild Animal Park.

But the arguments for moving are far from convincing. The government's support for such a decision is equally questionable.

First, there is no proof that contagious afflictions start from a zoo. There are millions of pets living peacefully with people in the cities. Less than 10,000 well-fed, well-managed animals in the zoo are not a threat to public health. It is unfair and shameful to blame animals for human disasters.

Besides, there are many zoos located in city centers around the world. It does not hold water to move the zoo for traffic reasons. Congestions should be solved through better design, traffic management and planning.

The zoo, as a place to learn more about animals, is popular among the public, especially children. Some schools even start their biology classes at the zoo. Conveniently located in the city proper, it can better service the function of popularizing science education.

Plus, moving the zoo would cause physical and emotional trauma for its resident animals. The sudden change of environment would be painful or even fatal for some animals.

What's more, the mammoth investment needed for demolishing the current zoo, building a new one and redeveloping the old site would be a heavy burden on taxpayers, while only a small portion of that sum would be enough to improve the current zoo and solve its so-called pollution problem.

Worries also persist about what will happen to the 87-hectare green land in this prosperous area of Beijing, where property is fancily priced at 7,000 yuan (US$843) per square meter on average.

There are just too many cases of zoos being moved out of cities around the country in the name of animal welfare or for other noble reasons, only to turn out to be gimmicks for greedy land development companies.

Certainly there is a much stronger public voice wanting to keep the zoo at its present location.

And Daxing, the government-chosen location, is the last place experts and scholars would recommend if the zoo must be moved.

Liu Nonglin, senior engineer of the China Society of Zoos, pointed out the soil property of Daxing is sandy and can hardly hold any water. The Beijing Wild Animal Park uses plastic cloth underneath to maintain ground water, and the woods there are not natural but man-made.

How can the zoo be built on such a place?

It is not difficult to figure out that both Chen Ruijun's company and the government of Daxing District, where Guo Baodong serves his duty, are actually owners of the Beijing Wild Animal Park, which has suffered financial problems since it was founded in 2001.

Thus the incentive behind the proposals becomes very tricky indeed.

And when the country is advocating transparency in administration and shaping a democratic and scientific decision-making system, the way the Beijing authorities are implementing this plan is not justifiable.

The zoo is a public welfare institution, so who should decide whether it moves or stays? Should it be the public? The government? Some experts ... or just some business people?

Many legal professionals hold that when government departments make such a decision, legal procedures should be followed to the letter - including conducting a feasibility study, holding administrative hearings and following up on inquiries by the people's congress deputies.

As the daily interests of the public are concerned with this issue, the public should not be excluded from the decision-making process. And the plan should be approved by the people's congress, authorized by the people to decide major issues concerning public interests.

Among the many opinions expressed, the voice of 10-year-old student Liu Yaran sounds so gratifying and enlightening: "I think we should vote to decide, and primary school and middle school students should also participate," says Liu.

With public opposition to relocating Beijing Zoo swelling in the media, the plan appears to be on the back burner for the time being.

Whatever the result, public attention over the issue shows an increasing sense of responsibility and rights by the citizens as more and more people are willing to participate in public affairs and request their legitimate rights.

But still, there is a lack of official voice to clear up the confusion.

The municipal government of Beijing should reflect on its job and provide some answers, as soon as possible.

(China Daily June 5, 2004)