The government formed an inter-agency task force to investigate and stop
the smuggling of wildlife products. Also, the media in Taiwan focused on
infractions of the law and enforcement busts. In response to the legislative and
administrative actions, the US lifted sanctions on Taiwan in 1995. In the
following year, it further removed Taiwan from the Pelly’s watch list. To the
Taiwan government, the revised Wildlife Conservation Law is ‘among the
most severe in Asia’.^44 This may be the case, but the legislation does not quite
establish the precautionary principle in the conservation of Taiwan’s
threatened and endangered species.
Protection of critical habitats against industrial development remains vague
and gives government officials large areas of discretion. For example, Art. 8
of the law provides:
‘Any construction and land use in major wildlife habitats should becarried out
in a way and areas which least affects the habitat, and the original ecological
functions of the habitat should not beharmed. If necessary, the Authorities shall
ask the owners, users or occupants of a land use project to conduct an Environ-
mental Impact Assessment ... Concerning existing facilities, land utilization or
development activities which have a significant impact on the wildlife in the
area, the NPA (COA) may requirethe relevant person or target business authority
to put forth a plan for improvements within a certain time limit.’^45 (emphasis
added)The COA retains the discretion to permit or disallow industrial or housing
development based on investigating officials’ judgment about the impact on
the habitat, without being required to prevent adverse modification. Moreover,
the COA retains the discretion to determine which habitat is critical and for
how long. These matters are not yet codified in regulations.
Low penalties have reduced the efficiency of laws and regulations. The
Cultural Heritage Preservation Act of 1981 (CHPA), and Arts 1, 8, 9, 10, 11,
13 and 14 of the Wildlife Conservation Law provide specific instructions for
the definition and mechanisms for conservation of Taiwan’s nature heritage.
However, these regulations provide few incentives to halt people from
violation, due to the low penalties imposed.
Furthermore, laws are not balanced with the livelihood needs of the
residents. When the National Parks Law was enacted in 1972, it focused solely
on the provision of recreational service to the public. It did not take into
consideration the suitability of facilities for use of residents or the livelihood
needs of park in-holders.
The Forestry Law, the Fishery Law and other conservation laws were
designed with economic development in mind. Moreover, the number of
different authorities involved in administering the law creates opportunities
for confusion through lack of coordination. For example, the supervising
authority for the CHPA is the Ministry of Economic Affairs; for the Wildlife
80 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan