fishing resources, ecological protection, water usage, pollution, and related
issues. In January 1996, the EIA opinion requested that planned usage of the
lagoon shrink to 60 percent in the alternative project location. The EIA
participants also reached the consensus that developers had to provide detailed
information about impacts on environmental, ecological, and social conditions
at the new location before the project could advance.
In May 1996, the EIA reached a preliminary conclusion that the Binnan
project was ‘conditionally passed’, which meant that it moved to the second
stage of EIA for detailed deliberations. Since controversy had centered around
the ecological impacts on the lagoon, the EIA report instructed that lagoon
usage be limited to 30 percent or less.
This was the first stage of the EIA process, and both scholars and ENGOs
who opposed development were frustrated with the results. They contended
that governmental agencies had set preconditions to the Binnan case, and that
passage of the first stage EIA was a green light for ecological disaster.
Scholars and professionals reasoned that from an ecological point of view, the
Qigu area lagoon should not be sacrificed on the alter of economic
development. Allowing developers to use up to 30 percent of the lagoon,
which was the conclusion of the first EIA stage, would jeopardize the
environment of the entire region. Pollution and eventual destruction of the
lagoon would also have serious impacts on the adjacent habitat of the black-
faced spoonbills.^20
After this defeat, the anti-Binnan group revamped its strategy. The MOEA’s
announcement in June that the Binnan project would break ground within six
months stimulated opponents to make their campaign efforts more inclusive.
They formed a new alliance, including Wetlands Taiwan, the Green
Association of Kaohsiung, the Association of Environmental Protection of
Chengkung University, and student associations. Their first step was to write
letters to the President, the Minister of Economic Affairs, and the Tainan
County magistrate. Major arguments in the joint letter included:
‘(1) The Binnan project would damage the water supply system of southern Taiwan.
Industrial use of water would distort the allocation of water resources and
negatively impact the entire region. 2) The project would further contaminate air
quality in the southern part of Taiwan. Emissions problems alone would imperil
Taiwan’s status under the Kyoto Protocol. For example, the environmental impact
report on the Binnan Industrial Complex noted that the seventh naptha cracker
would release 9.8 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, while the steel plant would
release 10.7 million tons, bringing the total yearly carbon dioxide emissions to
20.6 million tons.^21 3) The Binnan project would ravage fishing and agricultural
industries in the Qigu region, and those dependent on these resources would be
forced to leave their homes. In contrast, large corporations would gain enormous
economic rewards. Overall, the project disturbed social justice and the distribution
of economic benefits.’^22202 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan