alliance, even working with foreign NGOs. The ENGOs and the media in both
states displayed the symbiotic nature of this relationship. When comparing the
role of ENGOs, Taiwan’s NGO community is significantly more autonomous.
Alliances quickly formed among groups opposed to the Binnan development.
Even a pan-ENGO alliance materialized in opposition to planned industrial
construction in the wetlands. In China, on the other hand, ENGOs appear to
have coordinated strategy and tactics, but the state allowed no opportunity for
them to exercise coalition behavior. Most telling is the discouragement of
demonstrations and protests, even seemingly innocuous ones such as
celebration of actions against dam construction. Clearly, the democratic nature
of Taiwan’s new polity makes a difference in the ability of groups to seek their
objectives.
Less can be said about differences in the role scientists played in the
episodes. Both governments had their own science agencies, and they played
roles in the EIA process. In Taiwan, opponents of development lacked
concrete proof that the petrochemical complex and steel mill would endanger
the lagoon and the spoonbill. In this instance, the EIA and wildlife protection
laws are more permissive of economic development than laws of some other
nations (such as the Endangered Species Act of the United States). The
precautionary principle, which does not require conclusive proof of damage in
order to halt major development projects, is not embedded in the EIAs or
species preservation laws of China and Taiwan. In the Nujiang case, first
scientists had less information about the likely impact of dam construction and
hydroelectric development on species and habitats. Second, scientists were
divided, with those at the central level opposed, and the local scientists mostly
supportive. Under these circumstances, it was hard for science to inform
policy.
One similarity is the role that foreign groups, institutions, and celebrities
played in the cases. Even the Dalai Lama became involved in the spoonbill
cause, and in China, foreign media, financial institutions, NGOs, government
officials all sought to ‘put an oar in the troubled water’ of the Nu River. For
different reasons, both China and Taiwan are vulnerable to foreign pressure,
which may benefit species preservation causes.
Finally, movements protesting environmental change were led by
charismatic individuals: Su Huanzhi in Taiwan and journalist Wang Yongchen
in China. Leaders make the protest more inclusive and give energy to
campaigns. They make creative adaptations to changes in circumstances, and
hold the network of activists together by investing their passion in
organizations. We have labeled Su a policy entrepreneur, because he used the
Binnan case to expand his political career, ultimately displacing a rival to
become magistrate of Tainan County. Wang had little opportunity for policy
entrepreneurship in China, which is more likely to punish activists than reward
216 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan