An opinion written by an environmental activist in 2006 showed what data infrastructure (DATA) and "legal environment" - esp. procedural law - (MACRO) at this time influenced the agenda and the result of civil actions against Formosa.
Large-scale/longitudinal research findings by research institutes and central government were produced, accessible, and became key reference sources actors used in reasoning actions against the 6th NCC. This article itself is an example.
The Record of the EIA committee meetings were accessible and were applied by local fishermen in claiming monetary loss done by the 6th NCC in the Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation (PNDM) -a type of alternative dispute resolution that is simpler and more affordable than lawsuits.
However, in practice, most claims based on the EIA data lost. Why?
The data released (DATA) could not cross the evidential threshold applied in Public Nuisance Mediation (MACRO).
The formal alternative dispute resolution did provide a possible - a faster and cheaper - channel for the fishermen to claim. The data did provide sources for fishermen to reason their claims. But the record of the EIA meetings was not seen as sufficient evidence that could demonstrate the causal link between the corporation's "illegal polluting conduct" and the fishermen's "economic loss."
The seemingly more accessible data and seemingly more affordable legal procedure made rooms but no ways for local fisheries to win.