fulfill this requirement. The entire extraction site totaled 107 hectares, but the
developer, a conglomerate of several enterprises, applied for several separate
permits covering less than five hectares each. (The Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA] ordinance exempted projects covering less than five hectares
from the EIA Act requirements.)^9 This demonstrates the complicity of local
government and business in obstructing the intent of the law, a condition
facilitated by Taiwan’s bureaucratic politics before democratization.
THE IMPACT OF DEMOCRATIZATION IN TAIWAN
The making of environmental policy experienced large changes in the
democratic transition of the 1990s. The traditional command-and-control style
of environmental management could not be sustained. Three new patterns
emerged during Taiwan’s democratic reforms: legitimization of environmental
protests, restructuring of political coalitions and decentralization, and
incorporation of NGO participation in decision-making processes.
At the debut of democracy in Taiwan, large-scale environmental move-
ments were regarded as major threats to social stability. When Hau Pei-tsen
served as Taiwan’s Premier, he openly condemned ‘three kinds of hoodlums’
- environmental, labor, and agricultural.^10 Indeed, it was common then to
regard the environmental movement as a threat to social order. Kuomintang
officials portrayed environmental activities negatively, and called them
artifacts of the opposition. This hostile attitude reflected the fact that the state
was still adjusting to the rise of civil society.
Even in the early 1990s, the central government often superseded local
governments by using coercive measures to suppress environmental
movements. However, when Lien Chan became Premier in 1993, the cabinet
decentralized the power of managing environmental incidents. It invested
local governments with sufficient authority to resolve conflicts between
enterprises and local residents. Local governments were also empowered to
preserve order and implement environmental regulations and policies. At this
time, also, ENGOs began to establish local branches in order to create
grassroots support. Then ENGOs formed ties with residents, local
governments, and enterprises.
As the official attitude toward ENGOs switched from confrontation to
accommodation, they also gained recognition at the policy making level of
governmental agencies. Central ministries and agencies invited ENGOs and
scholars to participate in advisory committees, such as the Wildlife Protection
Advisory Committee, the EIA Review Committee, and the Sustainable
Development Committee, all at the cabinet level. This is not to imply that
ENGOs and scholars sat at the table with officials and made policy. In fact,
196 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan