Article 1 of Taiwan’s Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法) says: “This Act is formulated to prevent and mitigate the adverse impact of development activity on the environment in order to achieve the goal of environmental protection.”
It clearly states that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an investigation into a development project. As such, an EIA can only state that there are no environmental concerns in a passive approval of development, rather than serve as an active tool of encouragement or approval because the project has positive benefits, such as improving economic development or traffic.
It is therefore inappropriate to hope, like some do, that an EIA will be quickly passed to accelerate the construction of a new Suhua Highway or the Suhua improvement project.
Whether the government goes ahead with construction of a new Suhua Highway or an improvement project should be decided based on a review of the benefits and drawbacks. It should also plan routes and construction methods, specify the environmental impact and propose response strategies to the Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee. The committee members should only conduct a reasonable investigation of the environmental impact of the project and propose preventative environmental measures or alterations in order to lower the risk.
They don’t have the right to say to the developer: “This is a good plan, go for it.”
At most, an EIA only has one more function, and that is to demand that the developer propose an alternative plan and explain why it chose one of several plans and why that plan has less impact on the environment than the others. An EIA should not deal with a plan’s cost and benefits or whether the developer’s budget is sufficient.
The technical difficulty of building a new Suhua Highway is an issue for the engineering unit and raising money is the responsibility of the financial unit. In addition, how to respond to public calls for giving Hualien residents a safe road home is a political consideration. All these issues are unrelated to an EIA.
An EIA should serve as a checkpoint, not the driving force of a project. Generally speaking, even if an EIA is passed, it is passed conditionally. For example, if the result of the EIA is that part of a project has a serious impact on the environment, the EIA committee may require that the developer take supplementary measures.
The developer must evaluate how much the extra work will cost and whether it is feasible from an engineering aspect. If the budget is insufficient or if the project is not feasible from an engineering point of view, the project cannot be continued, even if the EIA was passed.
The debate over the construction of a new Suhua Highway and the alternative route has been going on for some years. It seems inevitable that the construction project will go on because of public pressure following the disaster last month. However, the government should explain if all the problems that have delayed the construction project have been resolved. Blaming all the problems on the EIA is just irresponsible.
I would like to emphasize again that an EIA should focus on the “what” and the “how,” instead of the “why.”
It should confine the discussion to the issue at hand and review the impact and strategies related to the environment based on the content of a proposal. The committee members should not take the initiative to ask why a proposal is submitted. Nor should they ask whether the Hualien residents can take the train home if the Suhua Freeway is not built.
Chen Wen-ching is a researcher at the Environment and Development Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers