Fundamental Principles

Under Paragraph 2, Article 10 of the Amendment Articles of the Constitution, environmental and ecological protection shall be given equal consideration with economic and technological development. This constitutional mandate underpins the fundamental value for the environmental legislation of Taiwan.

The bedrock of environmental protection in Taiwan is the Basic Environment Act (BEA). Specifically, Article 3 of the BEA provides that environmental protection must be taken into account in the economic, technological and social development so as to safeguard the long-term national interests; and where economic, technological or social development poses a seriously negative impact on the environment or is likely to endanger the environment, the protection of the environment must prevail.

In general, the BEA provides for the legal mandate for the government agencies to take into account the value of environmental protection and the goal of sustainable development during policy-making, planning, and decision-making.

Environmental Impact Assessment

According to the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA), EIA is required if the scale and the type of development activities meets certain statutory standards. The EIA approval issued by the Ministry of Environment (see Q1.2 for more details) serves as one of the prerequisites to legally carry out such development activities.

Please refer to Q3 for more introduction about the EIA regime in Taiwan.

Pollution Control and Environmental Protection

Under Taiwan law, each type of pollution is regulated by a different set of regulations in various sectors. Major pollution control legislations include the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act (SGPRA), the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), the Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA), and Marine Pollution Control Act (MPCA).

Other important environmental protection related legislation include the Climate Change Response Act (CCRA), the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA), the Waste Disposal Act (WDA), the Noise Control Act (NCA), the Toxic and Concerned Chemical Substances Control Act (TCCSCA), and the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (CHPA).

While each piece of environmental legislation stipulates the consequences for violating its provisions, there is no specific regulatory regime dealing with environmental damage in Taiwan. Environmental damage is subject to sectorial regulations or general laws, such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or the Civil Code.

Competent Authorities

The central competent authority for environmental matters is the Ministry of Environment (MOE), previously the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) before reorganization. The local competent authorities are the local governments, which often delegate this competence further to their subordinate agencies or departments (such as the local environmental agencies under the local governments).

The scope of authorities also varies based on the different laws governing specific environmental matters. As a rule of thumb, the MOE governs the environmental matters that have a nationwide dimension while the local governments govern the environmental matters within their administrative districts. However, it is not uncommon for the MOE to delegate certain competences to local governments.

EIA Regime

With respect to the development activities subject to the EIA process, the developer should prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and submit the EIS to the sectorial competent authority governing the development activities.

The authority governing the development activities will then refer the EIS to the EIA review committee under the MOE or the local governments/local environmental agencies, as the case may be, for review (see Q3 for more details).

Inspection under Sectorial Regulations

One of the common investigative measures taken by the competent authorities for environmental matters is inspection. Non-compliance with such inspection or found during such inspection may result in administrative fines, which can be consecutive until such non-compliance is corrected. During the inspection, anything that can serve as evidence of non-compliance may be seized by the competent authority. The competent authorities may invite interested parties to comment or make statements concerning the subject matter in connection with such inspection.

Generally, if the affected party would like to challenge an investigative measure which forms part of the administrative procedure, it needs to challenge such measure along with the final administrative disposition (such as imposition of an administrative fine) unless the investigative measure can be separately enforced.

The EIA must be conducted at the planning phase with regard to the specific development activities meeting the requirements, which constitutes the main applicable environmental permitting regime in Taiwan. While the EIA approval issued by the MOE is different from the development or operation licence or permit of a development activity to be issued by the sectorial competent authorities in charge of the relevant industry or development activity, it is usually a prerequisite to obtain such a licence or permit.

If the development activities involve in pollution control or other environmental protection-related matters, additional permits may be required.

In general, the EIA approval is linked to the underlying development activities instead of the individual developer.

Environmental permits are not transferable under the Taiwan administrative law, but the successor of a project may re-apply for such an environmental permit after the completion of an acquisition, and a streamlined reapplication procedures may be available.  In 2021, the former EPA (currently the MOE) opined to simplify the reapplication procedure in the case of asset acquisition. According to the EPA, for certain permits concerning pollution prevention, the buyer will only need to apply for changing the content of the permits instead of undergoing a new permitting procedure, provided that the status of the pollution sources remains unchanged after the transaction.

In the event that an administrative disposition (including the decision to pass or reject the application of an environmental permit) issued by the regulator is unlawful (e.g., without due process), the recipient or interested parties of such administrative disposition may file an administrative appeal against the permit issuing regulator within 30 days of receipt of the administrative disposition. Then, the legality and appropriateness of such administrative disposition will be reviewed by an administrative appeal committee organized by the superior authority of the regulator.

Where the decision by the appeal committee is not accepted by the recipient or interested parties, an administrative action against both the decision and the original administrative disposition may be further filed to the administrative court.

EIA requirements

According to the EIAA, the following 11 types of development activities are subject to EIA process. These development activities encompass industrial and non-industrial projects.

1. establishment of factories and development of industrial areas;
2. development of roads, railways, mass rapid transit systems, harbours and airports;
3. mining or prospecting activities;
4. development of water storage, water supply, flood control and drainage projects;
5. development and utilisation of agriculture, forestry, fishing, and pastoral land;
6. development of amusement, scenic spots, golf courses and sports venues;
7. development of cultural, educational and medical facilities;
8. construction of new urban areas and high-rise buildings or renewal of old urban areas;
9. construction of environmental protection projects;
10. development of nuclear and other energy sources and construction of radioactive nuclear waste storage or processing sites; and
11. other development activities announced by the central competent authority.

EIA process

The environmental assessment under the EIAA is characterised as a two-phase process.

If the EIA review committee concludes that the proposed development activity would not cause a significant impact on the environment, it will announce the result of such a review and the project is considered EIA-cleared. The developer may need to revise the EIS according to the review opinions. In principle, the review period of Phase I assessment should not exceed 50 days after receipt of the EIS, which may be extended for another 50 days. If the review committee concludes that the proposed development activity may cause significant impact on the environment, the developer will be ordered to go through the Phase II assessment.

Once the Phase II assessment is initiated, the developer should inform the relevant authorities in writing and publish the relevant information publicly (such as, on the newspaper and online, as may be required). The developer should also hold a public briefing and publish the information online. Then, the developer should consider the opinions from all sides and prepare the environmental impact assessment report (EIA Report). Public hearings should be conducted for the EIA Report before formal committee review. If the review committee considers that the development plan should not be implemented, the authority governing the development activity will not issue the relevant permit or licence to the developer.

EIA considerations

The EIAA does not expressly provide that biodiversity or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be taken into account. Having said that, both the EIS (for Phase I Assessment) and the EIA Report (for Phase II Assessment) are required to analyse the development activities’ impact on the environment and propose mitigation measures for environmental protection. In this connection, the developers are expected to put more focus on all environmental considerations which may include biodiversity and GHG emissions.

Challenge on EIA results

Environmental law proceedings may take place in civil, criminal or administrative courts, depending on the nature of the claim. Any person whose rights or legal interests were harmed by an unlawful administrative disposition (e.g., an EIA approval) may bring an administrative lawsuit to the administrative court (subject to the standing review) seeking revocation of such administrative disposition after receiving an unfavourable administrative appeal committee decision.

Where the application for EIA approval is rejected, the applicant may file a lawsuit against the MOE. In the case of EIA approval issuance, the interested parties (usually local residents) whose rights are thus affected may also file a lawsuit to revoke the EIA approval (subject to the standing review).

Soil pollution (together with associated groundwater pollution) is governed by the SGPRA. Under SGPRA, an event of soil pollution broadly covers the change of soil quality due to the intervention of a substance, organism or energy, which may affect the soil’s normal use or endanger the health and living environment of the people.

A soil pollution offender, including the person causing soil pollution or accumulating pollutants to cause soil pollution, should be liable to the interested party of the polluted land, land user, manager or landowner for the damages arising from the soil pollution. Further, a soil pollution offender should be responsible for carrying out necessary measures to remedy the soil pollution, such as cleaning up the pollutant, suspension of business and providing alternative clean water. In the event that the soil pollution offender is a corporate entity, its controlling shareholder or responsible person (usually statutory representative or directors) may be subject to certain liabilities under the SGPRA.

Certain liabilities may be attached to owners, administrators or users of the polluted land even though they are not the actual offender and even if the contamination takes place before their purchase or use of the land. The owners, operators or their successors of a piece of polluted land will be obligated to prevent deterioration of the contamination, comply with restrictive measures imposed by the competent authorities, and may need to bear the relevant control or remediation costs if they breached the duty of care as required under the SGPRA.

Under Articles 12 to 14 of the SGPRA, the competent authority should investigate the land sites suspected of having soil or groundwater pollution. If the site has a clear source of soil or groundwater pollution, and the concentrations of pollutants exceed certain standards, the local competent authority should designate such as site as a soil or groundwater pollution control site (Control Site); and if the Control Site is considered causing threat to severely endanger public health and the living environment, the central competent authority shall further designate it as a soil and groundwater pollution remediation site (Remediation Site).

In the case of a Control Site, the polluter or the person potentially responsible for pollution should complete investigation work within six months and draft a Pollution Control Plan for implementation. In the case of a Remediation Site, the polluter or the person potentially responsible for pollution should submit a Soil and Groundwater Pollution Investigation and Assessment Plan within three months of notification.

Under Article 31 of the SGPRA and the Criteria for Determining the Duty of Care of the Related Party of the Polluted Land promulgated by the MOE, the related party of the polluted land who is the user, administrator, or owner of such land (even though not being the polluter) should immediately report to the competent authorities when learning that the land is in danger of being contaminated. In case of failing to do so, the related party of the polluted land shall bear the joint and several liability for certain costs incurred by the competent authorities to deal with the soil and groundwater pollution with the polluter and the person potentially responsible for pollution.

Parties to real estate transactions should bear in mind that several Taiwan environmental protection laws concerning the pollution or waste remediation may impose a remediation obligation upon the acquirer under certain circumstances even if the pollution took place before the completion of the transaction.

Having said that, the owners, administrators and users of the polluted land, however, may turn to the actual soil pollution offenders, provided that these offenders can be identified and proven, and claim the cost arising from fulfilling the aforesaid obligations.

Waste is generally regulated under the WDA, under which waste is divided into two major categories: general waste and industrial waste; and industrial waste is further divided into two sub-categories: general industrial waste and hazardous industrial waste.

The government is responsible for the collection and disposal of general waste, which may be carried out by the government agencies themselves or outsourced to private service providers. However, disposal of industrial waste should be performed by the enterprises. Enterprises are also required to submit an industrial waste clearance plan (specifying the amount of industrial waste generated, disposal methods, etc.) to the local government periodically for monitoring and record purposes.

In addition to the WDA, the Resource Recycling Act (RRA) was enacted to specifically regulate the use of recycled resources and measures in relation to the reduction of waste generation, conservation of natural resources, and recycling and reuse promotion.

Enterprises that engage in waste clearance or disposal (Waste Disposal Enterprises) shall obtain the permit issued by the competent authorities and is required to comply with certain regulatory requirements. The WDA is silent on the liabilities of waster producers after the waste has been transferred to the waste clearance or disposal enterprises. However, since only Waste Disposal Enterprises are licensed to handle waste clearance or disposal, waste producers are generally not expected to retain liability for the waste once it has been transferred, provided they have executed and performed proper service agreements with the Waste Disposal Enterprises.

Under Article 15 of the WDA, for objects (including their packaging or containers) which may generate general waste that

1. cannot be easily removed or disposed of;
2. does not deteriorate over a long period of time;
3. contains a component that is a hazardous substance; or
4. has recycling value,

the producers or importers of such objects (including their packaging or containers) should be responsible for recycling, removal, and disposal of such objects or their packaging or containers.

As of March 2025, the MOE has announced 14 categories (containing 38 items) of the aforementioned waste-to-be-recycled objects for the relevant producers or importers to comply with the recycling obligation.

The MOE has announced and listed the asbestos as toxic chemical substance under the TCCSCA and the use of asbestos has been restricted over the years. Also, the MOE has promulgated certain restrictions on the importation of products containing asbestos under the WDA to safeguard the public health in Taiwan.

For buildings that contain asbestos, due to the likelihood of generating asbestos dust during demolition which may cause harm to human body, the building demolition should follow the Building Demolition Construction Code announced by the Ministry of the Interior, including the construction survey and report prior to the demolition, measures to prevent dust from the working environment, pollution protection to the environment and the construction personnel during the demolition, and the compliance with the relevant waste disposal regulations.

In the event that a building owner or a premises occupier needs to demolish the building or premises containing asbestos materials, he/she shall engage a licensed construction or demolition contractor for the demolition works, and arrange a licensed disposal enterprise to handle the cleaning of asbestos construction materials after demolition of the building.

If an employer requests the employees to dismantle a building or premises, the employer is responsible for conducting a survey for asbestos or other deleterious materials to identify potential hazards. Where the building is confirmed to contain asbestos, the employer shall take preventive hazard control measures against the employees’ exposure to asbestos dust in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the relevant standards of prevention from hazards from specific chemical substances.

Taiwan is not a contracting party to international environmental treaties or agreements. Having said that, the Taiwan legislature and policymakers codify and incorporate principles of international environmental treaties or agreements into domestic law as well as various environmental policies. Such “self-imposed” obligations reflects the Taiwanese government’s commitment to actively adopting measures that promote compliance with and implementation of international norms.

The TCCSCA is the core regulation on the hazardous products. Under the TCCSCA, toxic chemical substances generally refer to those intentionally produced by human activity or unintentionally derived from production processes, which are designated by the central competent authority as toxic chemical substances based on their toxicity characters. The TCCSCA sets forth different levels of regulation on toxic chemical substances depending on the category, the use amount, and the handling method of the toxic chemical substances. In particular, the manufacture, import and sale of toxic chemical substances are subject to prior approval of the local competent authority. Usage and storage of the toxic chemical substances must be registered beforehand at the local authority. Disposal and export must also be registered in advance for every batch and shipment.

The TCCSCA also provides that labelling is required for the containers, packaging, operations and facilities of toxic chemical substances. Warnings should also be clearly shown on the containers, packaging and the operation sites of toxic chemical substances. Further regulatory details are provided in the Regulations Governing the Labelling and Safety Data Sheets of Toxic and Concerned Chemical Substances.

The Energy Administration Act (EAA) is the fundamental legislation governing the energy efficiency requirement in Taiwan. Under Article 8 of the EAA, specific existing energy users designated by the competent authority should utilize the lighting, power, electric heating, air conditioning, refrigerating facilities or other energy consuming facilities at the applicable energy efficiency standard promulgated by the competent authority.

Further, under Articles 14 and 15 of the EAA, producers or importers of the designated energy consuming facilities, products, and cars should (i) ensure the energy efficiency of the said products complies with the standards stipulated by the competent authority and (ii) label the energy consumption and the energy efficiency information on the said products. As such, the energy efficiency labelling system for the designated products has become a mandatory system in Taiwan. By revealing information such as the energy efficiency and annual power consumption on the designated products, the energy efficiency level of certain energy consuming products becomes transparent information. Failing to indicate or falsely indicating the energy consumption or energy efficiency may lead to a fine of NT$20,000 to NT$100,000 and accumulative fines.

The Taiwanese government has proactively taken the initiative to develop policies and enact legislation aimed at mitigating and adapting to climate change. On March 30, 2022, the National Development Council released Taiwan’s Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions in 2050, with the goal of achieving net-zero GHG emissions in Taiwan by 2050. As part of the initiative, the Greenhouse Gases Reduction and Management Act (2015) (GGRMA), enacted in light of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) UNFCCC, was last amended on 15 February 2023, and renamed the CCRA to reflect the 2050 net-zero commitment in line with the Paris Agreement.

The CCRA codifies the long-term goal of achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 and includes a range of enhanced and new GHG mitigation and adaptation measures. Article 4.1 of the CCRA affirms that Taiwan’s long-term emission reduction target is to reach net zero by 2050, and Article 10.1 provides that the MOE will set the phase-in regulatory target for each five-year period in accordance with the required procedures.

As Taiwan is approaching Phase 3 (2026-2030), the MOE proposed an updated Taiwan National Determined Contribution (NDC) and announced the proposed Phase 3 regulatory target (Phase 3 Target) in December 2024, aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 28±2% by 2032 compared to the reference year (2005). Such proposal is now in the public consultation stage. In January 2025, the Taiwanese government further announced new national carbon reduction targets (though not under the NDC context), including a 32±2% reduction in carbon emissions by 2032 and a 38±2% reduction by 2035 compared to the base year. To achieve the above targets for 2030, 2032 and 2035, the government has outlined 20 flagship carbon reduction programs under the Taiwan Comprehensive Carbon Reduction Action Plan in six major sectors, including energy, manufacturing, residential and commercial, transportation, agriculture, and environment.

While Taiwan has a goal of achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, Taiwanese law does not impose any hard obligations to limit, reduce, or remove GHG emissions. The laws and regulations provide incentives to businesses to voluntarily take measures to reduce GHG emissions or meet GHG emission performance standards. Incentives may include the granting or awarding of credits to offset GHG emissions, subsidies, monetary awards, and government-certified labels. For example, under the CCRA and the Greenhouse Gas Voluntary Emission Reduction Projects Regulations, businesses may propose voluntary GHG reduction projects and apply to the MOE for approval to obtain emission credits, which should be used in accordance with the requirements and period set by the MOE. Another example is the mandatory GHG offsetting scheme under the CCRA and the Regulations for the Management of Offsetting the Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which requires businesses with new or modified GHG emission sources that reach a certain scale to conduct incremental GHG offsets by a certain percentage.

It should also be noted that Taiwan has only since 2025 implemented carbon pricing as a GHG reduction measure. On 29 August 2024, the MOE promulgated (i) the Regulations Governing the Collection of Carbon Fees and the Regulations on Self-Determined Reduction Plans, and (ii) the Designated GHG Emissions Reduction Goals for Entities Subject to Carbon Fees. With the promulgation of these carbon fee regulations, Taiwan has officially entered the era of carbon pricing. The first phase of carbon fee collection is targeted to begin in 2025, which will apply to businesses with annual carbon emissions exceeding 25,000 tons. Affected industries include power generation, steel, refining, cement, semiconductors, thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays, petrochemicals, and others.

On 3 March 2022, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) released the Sustainability Roadmap for Listed Companies, outlining a phased approach to ensure that all listed companies complete their GHG inventory by 2027 and obtain assurance for their GHG inventory by 2029. In 2023, the FSC further announced that in the same fiscal year that a listed company discloses its GHG inventory in its consolidated financial report, it must also disclose its GHG reduction base year and reduction target, strategy and action plan. Companies are also encouraged to set carbon reduction targets, strategies and action plans for 2030, using the year in which they complete the GHG inventory in their consolidated financial report as the base year.

Although Taiwan has not yet enacted specific greenwashing enforcement provisions for sustainability disclosure, existing laws such as the Taiwan Fair Trade Act (TFTA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) already provide a legal basis for addressing greenwashing when a company’s voluntary disclosure of information in commercial activities contains false, misleading, or deceptive content that disturbs market order or infringes on consumer rights. If companies’ advertisements contain environmental claims that are false or misleading, they may violate Article 21 of the TFTA. According to the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC), businesses risk false advertising charges if their net-zero or carbon-neutrality claims deviate from the standards set by the MOE. Similarly, enterprises should comply with the CPA by ensuring that their sustainability claims are truthful and that the goods or services they provide meet the quality standards stated in such claims. Otherwise, they may be deemed to have failed in their obligations to consumers.

In addition to a company’s voluntary disclosure, listed companies in Taiwan are required by law to accurately disclose sustainability information in their annual reports and sustainability reports. The disclosure of false or misleading information may result in legal liabilities for violating the Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWSE) and Taipei Exchange (TPEx) regulations on such documents; in severe cases, it may also violate Article 215 of the Criminal Code regarding the offense of making a false entry. Some has argued that such false or misleading disclosure is likely to violate Article 20 of the Securities and Exchange Act regarding false financial reports.

As there has been no clear judicial precedent yet, it remains to be seen whether antitrust law, consumer protection law, criminal law, and/or securities regulations may serve as a regulatory basis to combat greenwashing, or if lex specialis should be considered.

The TFTC promulgated the Guidelines on Concerted Actions in the Context of Environmental Sustainability (Guidelines) on 19 February 2025 to help enterprises determine whether their environmental sustainability practices may constitute concerted actions under the TFTA. In line with Taiwan’s key strategies for achieving its 2050 net-zero emissions target, the Guidelines set out certain types of business activities as examples for enterprises to reference in mitigating the risk of non-compliance. For example, the Guidelines identify (i) practices that involve no reciprocal restraint of trade and no concerns of concerted action; (ii) practices that would likely constitute concerted action but may be expressly permitted by law if the enterprises involved believe that such activities are conducive to environmental sustainability; and (iii) practices that is likely to constitute unlawful concerted action and threaten market competition.

In 2021, environmental groups Greenpeace filed Taiwan’s first climate lawsuit. Greenpeace argued that the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA)’s regulations on mandatory renewable energy usage, which require large electricity consumers to achieve 10% renewable energy usage out of their annual power consumption by 2025, were inadequate to meet the government’s 2050 net-zero target. The groups claimed that the MOEA had failed to enforce adequate climate mitigation measures and sought a court order to amend the regulations. On standing, Greenpeace cited Article 34 of the BEA, allowing public interest organizations to challenge the government’s actions in court. However, the Supreme Administrative Court reversed and remanded the case in 2024, stating that the plaintiffs lacked standing as individuals do not have a legal standing to request amendment to a specific regulation from the government. The case is now pending at the Taipei High Administrative Court.

In 2024, the Environmental Rights Foundations and a group of individuals filed Taiwan’s first constitutional climate lawsuit, arguing that the government must ensure people’s fundamental rights in the face of climate change. The petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to hold that medium-term emission reduction targets should be put into law and align future targets with Taiwan’s carbon reduction budget and net-zero goal by 2050. While the outcome of this case is still pending, it represents a significant advancement in climate change litigation to the constitutional level.

With the proposed Phase 3 Target expected to be approved by the end of 2025, the Taiwanese government may step up its efforts to promote carbon reduction policies.

1. The company: In principle, penalties under environmental laws are mostly imposed on the violators. If a company violates environmental law thereby resulting in pollution, the company would be held responsible for the pollution.
2. Shareholders and parent company: Shareholders and the parent company are generally not held responsible for the company’s violation of environmental law, except in rare cases such as violation of the SGPRA. Under Article 43 of the SGPRA, shareholders who hold more than 50% of the company’s voting shares or capital, or who have control over its operations, may be held financially liable for certain cost for the remediation of soil and groundwater pollution.
3. Directors: According to Article 15 of the Administrative Penalty Act, where a director or representative of a private entity causes such violation while performing their duties, they would receive a similar amount of fine if such violation is attributable to their intentional act or gross negligence. A director or representative may also receive a similar amount of fine as that imposed on the private entity if they fail to perform their duties to prevent any employee from violating the law due to their intentional act or gross negligence. In terms of individual environmental protection regulations, the SGPRA, the NCA, the WDA, the WPCA, the WCA, and the APCA all contain provisions on penalizing the representatives of a company for certain types of violations of these laws.
4. Entities (e.g. banks) that have lent money to the company: Under Taiwan law, lenders are not subject to penalties for the borrower’s violation of environmental law.
5. Other entities: According to the SGPRA, owners, administrators and users of polluted land may be subject to certain liabilities despite not being the actual offender and even if the contamination occurred prior to their purchase or use of the polluted land.

Taiwanese law generally does not impose pre-acquisition environmental liabilities on buyers. However, parties to real estate transactions should bear in mind that several of Taiwan’s environmental protection laws relating to pollution or waste remediation may, under certain circumstances, impose a remediation obligation on the buyer even if the pollution occurred before the completion of the transaction.

For instance, under the SGPRA, certain liabilities may be imposed on owners, administrators or users of the polluted land even if they are not the actual polluter and even if the contamination occurred before their purchase or use of the land. Therefore, any successor owner or operator of a polluted property would be obligated to prevent aggravation of the contamination, comply with restrictive measures imposed by the competent authorities, and may need to bear the relevant control or remediation costs if they have breached the duty of care under the SGPRA. However, the owners, administrators and users of the polluted land may turn to the actual polluters, provided that these actual polluters can be identified and proven, to claim the costs of meeting the above obligations.

In Taiwan, for asset or share sale transactions, sellers are typically required by buyers to disclose environmental information  under the transaction documents, and buyers often conduct environmental due diligence, in particular when the site concerned is located in an industrial park or has previously been used as a manufacturing facility.

For example, common environmental considerations in M&A transactions include air, water, soil and groundwater pollution, as well as compliance with the OSHA. In certain types of infrastructure projects, the impact on wildlife and biodiversity conservation is of particular importance. In asset acquisition transactions, as environmental permits and licences are typically non-transferrable, the focus may shift to the timely re-application to minimise any potential business disruptions. In financing transactions, in line with the global ESG trends, the FSC has implemented various measures to encourage Taiwanese banks to offer favourable lending terms to companies meeting the ESG criteria. For IPOs, severe environmental pollution that could hinder a company’s normal financial and business activities may lead to rejection during the TWSE reviewing process. The prospectus must also disclose all pollution incidents, losses or potential losses from environmental damage claims or fines (i.e., environmental expenses), as well as the pollution’s effects on the company’s surplus, competitive position and capital expenditure.

Mandatory and voluntary insurance mechanisms are provided under the Nuclear Damage Compensation Law (NDCL), the MPCA, the TCCSCA, the Petroleum Administration Act (PAA), and the regulations under the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Fund which was established pursuant to the SGPRA. However, Taiwan has not established a comprehensive compensation mechanism for environmental damages, and businesses with high pollution risks are generally not legally required to purchase environmental liability insurance. Currently, environmental liability insurance in Taiwan operates entirely under a voluntary liability insurance system, adhering to the principle of contractual freedom under civil law. This allows policyholders to freely decide whether to purchase insurance based on the contract terms. Due to the lack of a legal framework and commercial interest in the commercial insurance market, it seems that businesses lack motivation to purchase such insurance. Therefore, despite ongoing calls for legislation, the development of environmental liability insurance in Taiwan remains passive.

Under environmental protection laws, such as the WDA, the APCA, and the TCCSCA, entities are subject to different reporting obligations depending on their locations, and the government is obligated to keep records and disclose environmental information if permitted by law.

The MOE has established several public information online platforms, providing search services that allow the public to access various environmental information. For instance, it established the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register that includes reported data and information on penalties imposed for air pollution, water pollution, waste, and toxic substances on regulated businesses, thereby allowing the public to stay informed about pollution sources and related risks. The MOE also set up the Environmental Information Open Platform, aiming to integrate environmental data from various agencies under the MOE. This platform allows users to download both historical and real-time data from a single data source, and also offers support for internal data analysis applications.

In addition to the publicly available online data, parties seeking further access to environmental information held by government agencies may submit a request in accordance with the Freedom of Government Information Law (FGIL), to the extent permitted by the law (see Q12.2 for more details).

According to Articles 5 and 18 of the FGIL, government information must be made available to the public proactively or provided upon request by any person, unless it contains restricted content. Article 15 of the BEA also stipulates that all levels of government agencies must collect, investigate and assess the conditions of the natural, social and human environment within their jurisdictions, and establish an environmental information system for responding to inquiries; such environmental information must be disclosed to the public on a regular basis. Therefore, unless government information is legally required to be restricted or withheld, government environmental information should be made available upon request.

Under the CCRA and the Regulations Governing the Accounting, Registration, and Verification of Greenhouse Gasses Emissions, businesses in specific industries are required to conduct accounting and registration (by 30 April), as well as verification (if required; by 31 October), of their GHG emissions every year. Emission Sources Subject to Accounting, Registration, and Verification of Greenhouse Gasses Emissions further sets forth the industries that are subject to such reporting requirements and their reporting thresholds. Currently, a total of 20 industries are subject to GHG emissions reporting, and each of the industries has its own reporting thresholds. Note that the MOE has the authority to amend and expand such list from time to time.

For listed companies, the TWSE amended the relevant rules by adding ESG performance indicators to be disclosed in the ESG reports of all listed companies, including their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Based on the Roadmap for Taiwan Listed Companies to Align with IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards announced by the FSC on 17 August 2023, starting in 2026, listed companies that reach a certain paid-in capital threshold will be required to apply the ISSB Standards in preparing their annual reports. Such required disclosures will be based on both IFRS S1 and IFRS S2.

The MOE has adjusted the EIA thresholds for different types of renewable energy projects to ensure a balance between development and environmental protection. On 16 January 2025, the MOE amended the Standards for Determining Specific Items and Scope of Environmental Impact Assessments for Development Activities (Determining Standards) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Enforcement Rules (Enforcement Rules). These changes will take effect on 1 July 2025.

The amendments include new standards for conducting EIAs for various renewable energy projects, such as small hydroelectric power, photovoltaic power generation systems and geothermal energy. For example, the definitions and exemptions for small hydroelectric power were revised, additional regulations were introduced for photovoltaic power generation in environmentally sensitive zones, and EIA requirements were relaxed to apply to only those with an installed capacity of 50MW or more in non-environmentally sensitive zones. Furthermore, adjustments were made to the division of jurisdiction among the competent authorities for EIAs as stipulated in the Enforcement Rules.

Renewable energy developers looking to invest in Taiwan should be aware of the above regulatory changes.