the modernization and rationalization of its procedures in light of international
norms.
Since the Republic of China – Taiwan – departed from the UN in 1971, it
has had few options to sign international accords which also include the
People’s Republic of China. Nevertheless, Taiwan has attempted to participate
in important international environmental conferences, often doing so through
ENGOs, such as SWAN. Also, Taiwan’s behavior with respect to international
conventions on biodiversity (such as CITES, CBD) and the broader Agenda 21
goals of sustainable development resembles that of fully accredited nation-
states.
To answer our first question (What is the extent to which the legal
framework provides comprehensive and systematic protection of species and
ecosystems?), it appears that both China and Taiwan have reasonably
comprehensive legal and regulatory systems for the protection of species and
ecosystems, and that both States benefit from complex international
conventions in this area.
In both China and Taiwan, a large number of central and sub-national
institutions of government are responsible for the implementation of law and
regulations. State environmental protection agencies play leading roles,
sometimes together with national forestry and agriculture offices (and in a few
instances working at cross-purposes with them). However, other ministries are
involved, such as those in economic affairs, finance, education, foreign affairs,
construction and water resources. Given this degree of fragmentation,
coordination of policy is difficult. To the extent policy is integrated, it is
through task forces, special commissions, and through the State Council (in
China), but in the latter case only on exceptionally divisive issues, such as
major project construction. In general, agencies implementing biodiversity
conservation policies are small, ill-funded, and less powerful than agencies
closer to the core of the State, such as economic and defense institutions.
Once both jurisdictions were highly centralized in their administration of
policy, explained by their common origin as Leninist-style party-states. Since
democratization in Taiwan, the centralization of power through the Executive
Yuan has declined, and environmental policies are increasingly decentralized.
In China, since the onset of economic reforms in the late 1970s, the regime has
decentralized power to provinces, regions and municipalities. Since sub-
national agencies have most of the personnel engaged in biodiversity
conservation work and most of the financial resources, they are in the driver’s
seat, and their interests tend to advance economic development objectives over
and above sustainability. Because of the vast size of China, this devolution of
policy has greater effects and more adverse consequences than in Taiwan.
Thus, to answer our second question, ‘What is the degree of centralization
in the implementation of law and policy?’, law and policy tend to be
94 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan